P
Petergee
Guest
Looks like the rhetorical pretzel is now clutching at straws. Not a pretty sight.
- Status
P
patg
Guest
It is amazing how many types of “truth” there are and how difficult it is to recognize theological truth as separate from historical truth.
I don’t see how that is supportable based on what we know of classical writings - have you not read any of the examples which have been provided? There is a quote from a Roman writer who, upon hearing the accounts of Jesus’s birth, was not at all surprised by the supernatural events. What he was surprised by was that the events were associated with a nobody like Jesus. (I’m sorry not to have the reference with me for this right now).
You are free to think that. The Church also allows others of us to think the opposite.
“In fact”?? You are free to think that but I see it as a pretty basic misunderstanding of contemporary classical writing.
Anyone can add that comment to anything. It is more important to actually read the text and see that nothing in the text can be independently verified as having occurred and the gospels make it clear that those who experienced His ministry later were unaware of all the amazing events allegedly surrounding His birth. It is not logical to claim historicity and then reject the most basic rules of historical evidence.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I agree with you that we have to interpret the bible in light of the styles of writing that were in use at the time. I don’t take everything in the bible as literal/historical. I accept that the bible contains poetry, songs, history, fiction, myth, etc. But I’m not convinced that ‘infancy narrative’ was really a genre of writing. I think the small number of examples of fantastic contemporary infancy stories were actually of the historical genre. Fraudulent history, but none-the-less, historical in style. I’m interested in discussing it though, which is why I’m here. I’d be interested in the quote you refer to if you find it.Neil_Anthony:
I don’t see how that is supportable based on what we know of classical writings - have you not read any of the examples which have been provided? There is a quote from a Roman writer who, upon hearing the accounts of Jesus’s birth, was not at all surprised by the supernatural events. What he was surprised by was that the events were associated with a nobody like Jesus. (I’m sorry not to have the reference with me for this right now).
Pretty basic misunderstanding? The historicity of the infancy narratives is controversial and not at all decided upon by scholars. Please, it’s far from a basic misunderstanding, it’s an opinion supported by many scholars.
I realize your position is acceptable as long as you aren’t denying the virgin birth.
Luke’s infancy stories were not all that amazing. A virgin birth is amazing, but I doubt that Mary and Joseph told everyone about it, given that skeptics might presume that it was an illegitimate pregnancy. Shepherds visiting them at the manger could easily be explained away by skeptics… after all its not that unusual.
Why the emphasis on ‘independent verification’ of the events in the gospels? Why would you make that a requirement?
God Bless,
Neil
S
snowfly
Guest
No, and neither does the Sea of Galilee become tranquil, water doesn’t behave like that from one moment to the next.
And the dead remain dead, the blind remain blind, the cripple lame etc; why does he limit the power of what God can do or cannot ?
The Church has it’s own calendar, just like feast days, some day has to be picked no-matter if it isn’t right on que.
Luke 1:34** And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? **
Some sadly are still doing what Mary asked reparation for.
These motives are: 1) blasphemy against her Immaculate Conception; 2) blasphemy and heresies against her perpetual Virginity; 3) blasphemy and heresies against her Divine Maternity; 4) disrespect and irreverence to her shrines or images; 5) the crime of those who attempt to uproot from souls—particularly the souls of the young—their devotion to the Mother of God.
First Saturdays in Reparation for these.
P
patg
Guest
It is not a requirement for faith-based belief. If, however, one is discussing an event and using words like “history” and “evidence” mixed in with theological and supernatural statements, the historian in some of us is bound to question just how historically verifiable the event is. This is not out of a desire to deny the faith-based truth but to dig deeper into the reality of the event.
We don’t have birth records in the Bethlehem city hall or the hospital or birth announcements in the local paper . There are no baptismal certificates on file or school records or writings by local historians. All we have are a few words written only by those who already believed in Him, long after the events - events, many of which, are either outside the realm of human history or are such that they should have been mentioned (or at least remembered} by someone. So basically it all comes down to faith in the events one is required to believe in and optional acceptance of the others. You may not have any reason to doubt the historicity of everything related to the birth stories and I see no reason to believe in their historicity.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
To quote the OP:
- Dr. Rowan Williams, the worldwide leader of the Anglican communion, said that the story of the Magi in particular is vague at best, and the claim that the followed a star to Bethlehem is incredible because “stars to not behave like that.”
Your analogy breaks down, because healings or raisings of the dead are not quite the same sort of thing as is implied, indeed required, by Matthew 2. Stars do not stand over buildings - to do that, they would need to be so close to the face of the earth that the surrounding countryside would be burned up for hundreds of miles around.
No such massive dislocation of the natural order is implied by the things you mention; someone can be healed without anyone else but the healer knowing of it. That’s the difference.The Archbishop is right - & he is not limiting God at all, but refusing to attribute to Him a miracle for the occurence of which there is no evidence whatever.
BTW - Happy New Year 
[It’s just past midnight here]
N
nsper7
Guest
As a soon-to-be (hopefully) confirmed member of the Episcopal Church (the Province of the Anglican Communion in the US), this kind of thing (as well as the extremely theological liberalism exhibited by certain diocese within the Episcopal Church) really concerns me. In my strongest opinion, to deny the Virgin Birth is to deny Scripture and Christianity.
In reading the original interview, it appears that Archbishop was voicing personal opinion and questions (as opposed to issuing some kind of doctrine). Prior to my involvement in the Episcopal Church, I attended a church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Kenya (one of the more theologically conservative provinces of the Anglican Communion). In speaking to the Curate at the ACK church I attended and speaking to others, it seems there is a strong risk that there could be major schism within the Anglican Communion (there was a rumor flying around at one point that if the Episcopal Church continues down a path of theological liberalism *, they could get excommunicated/divested from the Anglican Communion).
It seems like the American churches (many of them, not all) are falling into either theological liberalism, materialism (i.e. send me your donation and you will be blessed) and/or rabid fundamentalism. The strongest churches (doctrinally), especially in the Anglican Communion, seem to be in parts of Africa. I am of the personal opinion that the ‘spirtual center’ of Christianity may end up in Africa.
This may sound crazy to Eurocentrics, but historically, many of the Church Fathers (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Athenasius and Augustine of Hippo) hailed from Africa. Further, according to records, Africa has seen an astounding growith of Christianity (from 9 million in 1900 to 380 million in 2000). The World Christian Encyclopedia estimates that, by 2025, there could be 633 milion Christians in Africa.*
In reading the original interview, it appears that Archbishop was voicing personal opinion and questions (as opposed to issuing some kind of doctrine). Prior to my involvement in the Episcopal Church, I attended a church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Kenya (one of the more theologically conservative provinces of the Anglican Communion). In speaking to the Curate at the ACK church I attended and speaking to others, it seems there is a strong risk that there could be major schism within the Anglican Communion (there was a rumor flying around at one point that if the Episcopal Church continues down a path of theological liberalism *, they could get excommunicated/divested from the Anglican Communion).
It seems like the American churches (many of them, not all) are falling into either theological liberalism, materialism (i.e. send me your donation and you will be blessed) and/or rabid fundamentalism. The strongest churches (doctrinally), especially in the Anglican Communion, seem to be in parts of Africa. I am of the personal opinion that the ‘spirtual center’ of Christianity may end up in Africa.
This may sound crazy to Eurocentrics, but historically, many of the Church Fathers (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Athenasius and Augustine of Hippo) hailed from Africa. Further, according to records, Africa has seen an astounding growith of Christianity (from 9 million in 1900 to 380 million in 2000). The World Christian Encyclopedia estimates that, by 2025, there could be 633 milion Christians in Africa.*
S
snowfly
Guest
No massive dislocation of the natural ? is it natural to be a cripple, to be blind, to be deaf, dumb ?
No it isn’t, Sin sorted that one out, and wreaked havoc on the Garden of Eden, (the earth)
No evidence whatever ? ok,Matt 2: 2 *Saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to adore him. *The Archbishop is right - & he is not limiting God at all, but refusing to attribute to Him a miracle for the occurence of which there is no evidence whatever. ## BTW - Happy New Year
So if your saying the Bible is no evidence, then search me.
And like the miracle of the sun at Fatima, when it was raining and everyone was soaking wet, and then when it was all over, everyone was bone dry ?
Plus human thinking would make us think that the star would burn us up, but what about Fatima what about God, don’t limit the power of God, remember the mustard seed, the more you believe, the greater shall be the miracles in you life.
So where is the evidence,
Ok I get it, now, :nope: the problem with the Archbishop and a lot of people here on this forum and on the planet, is they forget the Spiritual amongst the physical.
They forget they have a spiritual side,
Speaking off the cuff here, I’d say the Archbishop is an idiot, and should be ashamed of himself, reminds me of “Thank-you Father for revealing these things to mere children”.
A
anthony022071
Guest
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I take your point, but the things you mention can all happen without another person being affected. The sort of behaviour attributed to the star (if one takes Matthew’s text as describing stellar motions, which there is no compelling reason to do) would affect the geography & inhabitants of the are significantly - by frying them. That is the difference.
I hope that clarifies mattersBut it didn’t have any known effects on the natural world - such as altering the direction of the earth’s rotation, or (in this case) burning up the ground for hundreds of miles
Gottle of Geer earlier:
None whatever. Being blind handicapped has no consequences for astronomy or geography; the earth’s gravity doesn’t collapse because someone has a stroke, or is blinded.
It’s possible to make statements which are identical in linguistic form with statements of fact, that don’t assert facts. “John ran a hundred yards” could be asserting a fact about a real person undertaking a real activity. It might equally well be about a wholly invented person, who being a fiction never did a thing. When statements about fictional beings take their colouring from realities of daily life (such as running), they have what is called verisimilitude: they are truth-like in form, without being truth-ful in content. Not everything that looks like a fact of history, is.
This part of the gospel is asserting a fact: that Jesus was born. As the star is credited with doing what is impossible - standing over one particular building to identify it - & as nothing is said of the effects that would follow if a star were really that close to earth (such as frying the population) it is highly likely that the star, & other features of the text, are not part of an event that actually happened,
but that they are part of Matthew’s literary “furniture”, put there to underline the meaning of Jesus: that the words of
- Numbers 23.17 (the star)
- Psalm 72 (tribute from distant kings)
- Micah 5 (a Davidic ruler)
- & other passages
are uniquely applicable to Him.
I have serious doubts about all that. Besides, the sun cannot do that sort of thing. Not without massively dislocating the solar system. The fact of our having this discussion proves it didn’t, because it would have had far-reaching effects on the earth. Besides, drying clothes does not take a miracle
Even if there was a miracle, that does not in the slightest show that the alleged apparitions were genuine - far less that the “messages” are God-sent. What do I need with messages or apparitions or miracles or junk like that, when I have the Bible, the Church, & that sort of thing ?The same God created the entire natural order in an ordered mode, which is what makes it *intelligible *to us; God gave us intelligence. So we are to use it. It is because it is created as a particular sort of universe, as this & not that, that we are able to amass coherent kinowledge about it. And what is known of it, rules out the sort of goings-on by stars or sun that you want me to believe. It is only because we can know & understand so much in the world that the notion of miracle has any meaning in the first place.
Maybe, once you’ve blamed him for that, you’ll back up your assertion.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
If the Star of Bethlehem had to be a sun-sized star moving through our atmosphere to be a “star” and be “followed”, I guess we’re lying when we speak of a hippopotamus, because it’s not really a river horse. We must be lying when we speak of a woolly bear because bears have no wool and don’t become moths. We must be lying when we speak of the Jaws of Life because they aren’t really bones that support teeth for chewing food. I guess nothing new is allowed a name ever again.
A bright light moved from the east to the west and stood over Bethlehem. That doesn’t usually happen. That is what supernatural means. God does supernatural things to make Himself visible just as He made the laws of nature in the first place to reveal His nature.
People have known for all of human history that they need a god to become a man and be changed in some important way, either by passing through the underworld or some other way. At one specific time it really happened. The evidence at the time was overwhelming and people who had thought a god had come many times heard the story and realized they were hearing about the real deal and it only needed to happen once. People who had thought their leaders were half-gods but had lost heart whent he leaders died and never returned learned that there was just one od, He had come, died and returned and hundreds had seen Him. the miracles continued. They converted and were willing to die, not merely in battle, but in testifying to the evidence for their belief.
A bright light moved from the east to the west and stood over Bethlehem. That doesn’t usually happen. That is what supernatural means. God does supernatural things to make Himself visible just as He made the laws of nature in the first place to reveal His nature.
People have known for all of human history that they need a god to become a man and be changed in some important way, either by passing through the underworld or some other way. At one specific time it really happened. The evidence at the time was overwhelming and people who had thought a god had come many times heard the story and realized they were hearing about the real deal and it only needed to happen once. People who had thought their leaders were half-gods but had lost heart whent he leaders died and never returned learned that there was just one od, He had come, died and returned and hundreds had seen Him. the miracles continued. They converted and were willing to die, not merely in battle, but in testifying to the evidence for their belief.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
You said:
That is what would happen even so, if the star were so close to the earth as to be identify “where the child lay”.
1. There is no evidence of the historical or astronomical reality of Matthew’s star - there is evidence of the historical reality of six Jesuits (I think they were) who were at the epicentre of the Nagasaki blast. So I believe the latter is historical fact, but not the former.
The Resurrection is unaffected, because it is not an historical event - it is in the strictest possible sense a supernatural Act of God. It has no parallels, so none can be given: whereas historical study depends on a vast network of parallels, analogies, precedents. It cannot be compared to anything, any more than God can.- As for talk of “God interfering” - if you have a car, & I break it into without your leave by vandalising it, that is interference. If God works a miracle - that is not interference. For:
- God is the Creator & Sovereign Lord of every creature, without the slightest exception & in every respect bar none.
- He does not vandalise His works. He does give some of them the capacity to have effects which are “above” the capacities of the properties natural to them. That is why those effects are called “supernatural” in the first place:
- take Baptism - water does not affect the soul: usually. It can’t, because water is material, & the soul is a created spirit. In Baptism it does, because the water has received the supernatural capacity to purify from sin. The more one thinks about what is going on in Baptism - every one of them - the more wonders one finds. Yet Baptism, like the Eucharist, is not a miracle, because miracles have to be perceptible. And the supernaturality of these sacraments is imperceptible except to the eyes of faith.
- No violence is done to the thing supernaturalised - otherwise every grace would be a violence to human nature. Nor are miracles a violence to the means by which the miracle is done.
Bad logic. Belief in one is perfectly possible even if one does not believe in the other. A belief in either does not - logically, that is - entail believing the other.
Disbelief in the reality of some, many, or most accounts of miracles is not the same as disbelief in the reality of all. People’s reasons for their beliefs & disbeliefs vary, on the subject of miracles as on other things: even if they are all Christians or Catholics.No miracle is asserted by Matthew in Matt. 2, so none is being denied. Even it were the case that Matt. 2 is asserting a miracle, one can perfectly well believe most firmly in the Resurrection without believing in the miracle you see in Matt. 2. If I deny that David was king of Israel, & say that he was an 12th-century king of Scotland, I’m not “denying the Bible”, nor have I gone crazy; I’m merely referring to a different individual of the same name; an assertion about the 12th-century Scottish king does not imply belief or disbelief or any opinion at all about the Israelite David. One can quite easily believe the Resurrection was (& is) a real event without having any belief, or disbelief, in the real occurrence of others, whether as miracles, or as actual but natural events.
It’s evidence of the status of Jesus - not of the events surrounding His Birth & Infancy.What matters is the accurate interpretation of the Bible, so far as this is possible - & if there is no compelling reason to see an account of a true miracle in a text, then so be it. Even if the text be about the Nativity.
Before condemning the Archbishop of Canterbury for a disbelief you haven’t shown he holds, why not prove such a disbelief is his ? Is it usual to condemn people for purely hypothetical faults ?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
?
You’re confusing
- the conventions by which words are often used in non-proper & extended or figurative senses (which deceive no one used to speaking the language in which the conventions occur)
with - the attribution to a star of effects it must have had if it really acted as described. As the effects are non-existent, it is reasonable to suppose - bearing in mind the character of the passage in which the star is mentioned - that no really-existing star is being described by Matthew.
And only stars that exist in the Primary World can have effects in the Primary World. There is no more reason for believing ther was such a star “over the house where the Child lay” - for it is that, which is completely without any foundation in reality; stars do move. That we use that sort of language about them, is not the difficulty.
- the non-historical status of the account in Matt. 2 as a whole;
- the physical impossibility of the stationary & signatory behaviour attributed to the star
- the lack of any reason to suppose there was a miracle making the said behaviour of the said star possible
- the absence of any reason to suppose this miracle occurred - apart from the need to avoid having the stationariness of the star be a literary & theological entity rather than an historically actual entity.
In everyday language, maybe - but not properly speaking. Everyday language is a poor guide to theology
There is not a scrap of evidence for any such miracle - you’e confusing literary & actual realities: a star in an invented narrative can have effects in the world of that narrative, but not outside it. Its reality is confined to the world it exists in.Something for the occurrence of which there is no evidence, cannot in any worthwhile sense be said to have occurred. For instance: the state of the White House (which was bombarded during the 1812-14 War) might be accounted for by saying the British sent fire-breathing dragons against the US, & that a dragon caused the damage that was painted over. But there is no reason to believe this - & even less reason to use this event as proof of the real existence of dragons, of the zoological accuracy of those parts of the Bible which speak of dragons, or of the ignorance of historians & naturalists who deny the truthfulness of this idea. Only if there were evidence for the actuality of dragons in that period from an independent source might it be possible to begin to suggest that the explanation by dragon was plausible - let alone accurate as history.
The only basis for any miracle is the need for there to have been one. This need is caused by the collision between Matthew’s text, & the known facts of the behaviour & composition of stars. And the collision is caused by taking Matthew’s text as describing a series of historically & astronomically real events. Which there is good reason not to, & good reason to read in a different way - as the Evangelist’s theological interpretation of the event of the Birth of Jesus.
There may have been actual Magi & an actual star in the tradition which took shape as Matt.2 - it does not follow that by drawing on actual beings, the tradition or the Evangelist were giving or trying to give direct transcriptions of those actualities. So while the astronomy of 10 B.C. to 10 A.D. is interesting, its reality does not in way mean that the finished picture of Child, star, & Magi in Matt. 2 is real or historically factual.
Correction: the text asserts the moving - but not the effects of the standing; hence the problem. That something is asserted, does not make it a reality. And there is nothing to be said for postulating miracles of which there is no evidence. If the star is a purely literary device, no appeal to the miraculous can make it real.
A
anthony022071
Guest
That is what would happen even so, if the star were so close to the earth as to be identify “where the child lay”.
Who says the star would have to be close to the earth for the magi to find the place where the child lay? Were not the ancient navigators capable of finding their way at night by the position of the stars? On the other hand,is the sun a more accurate guide to a specific location than a star? The sun lights up the whole hemisphere!
1. There is no evidence of the historical or astronomical reality of Matthew’s star - there is evidence of the historical reality of six Jesuits (I think they were) who were at the epicentre of the Nagasaki blast. So I believe the latter is historical fact, but not the former.
The gospel of Matthew is a historical document itself,as well as a theological document. Catholic theology is based upon historical events,just as the Jewish religion was. There is no contemporary historical evidence for the teachings of Jesus,or Jesus’ resurrection,apart from what is found in the New Testament.
The Resurrection is unaffected, because it is not an historical event - it is in the strictest possible sense a supernatural Act of God. It has no parallels, so none can be given: whereas historical study depends on a vast network of parallels, analogies, precedents. It cannot be compared to anything, any more than God can.
That supernatural act of God was a historical event,or else there was no act of God at all. It affected a body – so how can it be described as an act of God if it was not an event in history?
There’s no dichotomy between a supernatural act of God that happens in the world,and a historical event. Any act of God that happens in the world is also a historical event. Contrary to what Aristotle believed,God interferes with history – eternity can communicate with history.
It is interference – God is extrinsic to the natural world he created.
- As for talk of “God interfering” - if you have a car, & I break it into without your leave by vandalising it, that is interference.
For:
God does destroy his works. That is all over scripture.
- God is the Creator & Sovereign Lord of every creature, without the slightest exception & in every respect bar none.
- He does not vandalise His works.
He does give some of them the capacity to have effects which are “above” the capacities of the properties natural to them.
That would be the infusion of the Holy Spirit into natural things. The Spirit gives life to matter,which by itself is dead.
That is why those effects are called “supernatural” in the first place:
The word “supernatural” not only refers to effects,but to the cause. Spirit is supernatural,and spirit gives life to nature. Spirit both gives life,and it *is *life.
If that is the case,what is the point in saying that the Resurrection was not a historical event but only a supernatural act? Christ was perceived by the apostles to have risen from the dead. It was a supernatural act and a historical event,or it was neither. And how can anyone say that baptism has anything supernatural about it if they don’t believe that the Resurrection took place in history?
- take Baptism - water does not affect the soul: usually. It can’t, because water is material, & the soul is a created spirit. In Baptism it does, because the water has received the supernatural capacity to purify from sin. The more one thinks about what is going on in Baptism - every one of them - the more wonders one finds. Yet Baptism, like the Eucharist, is not a miracle, because miracles have to be perceptible.
And the supernaturality of these sacraments is imperceptible except to the eyes of faith.
In a way,grace does do violence to human nature,because human nature is fallen,and grace contradicts a man’s natural inclination toward sin.
- No violence is done to the thing supernaturalised - otherwise every grace would be a violence to human nature.
Nor are miracles a violence to the means by which the miracle is done.
Bad logic. Belief in one is perfectly possible even if one does not believe in the other.
It may be possible but it is not reasonably possible,not justifiable – and Christian faith musthave reason. Christian belief is grounded upon events which happened in history. If someone doubts that God used a star to guide the magi to Jesus,then they will likely doubt the factuality of the Resurrection as well.
A belief in either does not - logically, that is - entail believing the other.
It is logically inconsistent to believe in the gospel account of the Resurrection,the greatest of miracles,and yet doubt the gospel account of the other miracles and signs. They are all recorded as events.
A
anthony022071
Guest
- Status