Sorry if I got you mixed up with somebody else!
No problem!I didn’t say the miracles didn’t happen. I said that there was a heirarchy of which truths are the most important. But I am sorry about getting you mixed up with those who think the date of December 25 has some huge importance. Second time this thread alone…I really need to be more careful about that!
I don’t think you can be a Catholic without believing in the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, since this is a proto-Eucharistic miracle. (Also, the alternative explanation - that the miracle was that the people shared their food with one another - is rather insulting; it is not “miraculous” or even particularly uncommon for followers of Jesus to share with those in need.)
The question that begs to be answered is why would you doubt the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, the walking on the water, the changing of the water into wine etc?I didn’t say the miracles didn’t happen. I said that there was a heirarchy of which truths are the most important. But I am sorry about getting you mixed up with those who think the date of December 25 has some huge importance. Second time this thread alone…I really need to be more careful about that!
But yes, as a matter of fact, you can believe in a literal resurrection without believing in a literal multiplication of the loaves or a literal instance of wise men from the East bearing gifts to Jesus (let alone exactly three with particular names who are also kings). I’m not saying that would be correct, but people do it all the time. This is especially true of the nativity stories, since those do not appear in Scriptures time and again, being explicitly proclaimed as literal truth, as the death and Resurrection of the Lord do. John and Mark don’t make those stories out to be important at all, and even Luke and Matthew choose totally different parts of those events to tell.
General PS: The words “legend” and “myth” do not necessarily imply that the story is untrue, at least not in scholarly circles. In some circles, those words denote stories that carry a meaning larger than the literal facts of the story. For instance, when someone’s exploits are referred to as “legendary”, that doesn’t mean the exploits never happened. It means they are the stuff of a larger-than-normal-life tale.
Yes, I have. It has been taught for years in that fashion.
There are theories, and then there are observable facts.
Great speech.
You did not answer the question. Why would you or anyone doubt the veracity of these miraculous events? It is a very simple question.Why don’t you try rephrasing the question so that you’re asking the same questions as the Church. The Church always looks at these miracles to find the answer to one single question.Great speech.
It really is.
Myth is a misleading term because since the 19th Century unbelievers have tried to treat Scripture in the same way thatThe word “myth” is a proper word used in theology by theologians and biblical scholars. Myth does not mean fairy tale. It means a story that has been handed down from generation to generation. As it is handed down it acquires a character of its own and pieces of the story are integrated, sometimes out of sequence or ignoring the passage of time so as to make it flow more smoothly.
For example, in the nativity story as it is read in scripture, it gives the impression that Jesus was visited by the Wise Men from the East on the night of his birth and that they visited him in the manger. The story has been passed down so long that we present Jesus in a manger with the Wise Men on their knees adoring the child.
However, careful examination of scripture indicates that this is myth. This is not the way it happened. In Luke Herod asks the Wise Men how long they have been searching. They tell him. Herod orders all males age two and younger executed. Therefore, the Wise Men did not arrive the night Jesus was born. Why kill all two-year old boys?
Also, if we read Lukes account very carefully, it says that they entered the house. It does not say a manger or a stable. Therefore, the Wise Men kneeling adoring the child in a stable is a myth.
Luke also tells us that Mary and Joseph left Israel and fled to Egypt and stayed there until Herod’s death. This begs the question whether the Wise Men visited Jesus in Nazareth or in Egypt. There is no known answer to this question.
The story tells us that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census and Mary went into labor. He also tells us that they were from Nazareth. If Herod was looking for a child age two or younger, what are the chances that the holy family would still be in Bethlehem two years after Jesus’ brith? They were poor Narenes. It is unlikely that they had a second home in Bethlehem. Had this been the case, Mary would have given birth in a bed, as was the custom, not in a cave meant for animals.
This is why theologians use the word “myth”. It does not deny the reality of Jesus and how he was incarnated and born. The word suggests that the way the story is told is in the same genre as that of myths. Not that the personages and the action of God is a myth.
The word myth applies to the genre that the writers use and that our ancestors used to tell it.
Just as David told many truths using poetry, which is another genre, the Gospel writers used mythology to tell truths. Some stories were too complicated and there were missing pieces of information that the Gospel writers did not have. They tied together the pieces that they had in some cohesive form so that converts to the Christian faith could understand.
Whether or not theology should not use the word myth is another story altogether. Every academic discipline has its own jargon. We can’t tell every discipline to change its language for our benefit. It’s not going to happen. That would be like telling the medical sciences to stop using the term “medical practice.” Do physicians really practice on their patients? We call psychologists “mental health practitioners”, but that doesn’t mean that they practice being mentally healthy. Some are nuts.
The point is, let’s not start to try to change the language of the academic disciplines. Let’s learn what it means.
Fraternally,
JR
Why keep ducking the question? Why would you not believe these miraculous events? Why would you even doubt them? What possible reason could you have? Come on, its not that hard.Why don’t you try rephrasing the question so that you’re asking the same questions as the Church. The Church always looks at these miracles to find the answer to one single question.
Who was Jesus Christ?
The Church doesn’t stop to ask did it happen this way or that way. Good theology is Christological. It always asks the same question. Who was Jesus Christ? What does this story tell us about him? What is being revealed here?
To dwell on the historicity of each miracle is to do what Albert Schweitzer once wrote in his book The Quest for The Historical Jesus. It is a futile task that only ends in frustration, because we don’t have enough evidence to prove or disproof any of this. However, Dermot Lane said that "whatever happened and however it happened it changed the world and the faith of those around Jesus. It transmitted a meaning about Jesus that has never been duplicated in history by any other person. The question is what is the meaning that these stories convey?
Check out his books The Reality of Jesus and Who is Jesus?. Also read Benedict XVI’s book Jesus Christ. The Holy Father raises the same issue about historical accuracy and quickly dismisses its relevance in light of the fact that Jesus has transformed human history. He approaches the mystery of Jesus and bypasses the question of literal history. It’s not important to him. What’s important in this monumental work, is who Jesus is. That should be the focus of our questions regarding Jesus.
Fraternally,
JR
I don’t accpt his understanding of what the Holy Father has written. The pope’s whole point is that one must start by taking seriously the story as written, We cannot learn much about theWhy keep ducking the question? Why would you not believe these miraculous events? Why would you even doubt them? What possible reason could you have? Come on, its not that hard.
I suspect that there will not be an answer forthcoming to this question, as simple as it is.The answer would really show too much.
As far as Jesus Christ, believe it or not, I know exactly who and what He is. As to His performing miracles, or being able to do so, I know the answer to that one as well.
Maybe you dwell on whether He did or didn’t, or could or could not. I don’t. But then again, I don’t see it in a complex fashion. It is all very simple to me.
:knight1:No orthodox Catholic theologian has said that they do not believe in the miracles of Jesus or the miracles of the Bible.
Great statement:thumbsup:No orthodox Catholic theologian has said that they do not believe in the miracles of Jesus or the miracles of the Bible.
My answer was to the use of the term myth. It is a legitimate term used in this academic discipline. I also explained in my post why it is used and how it is used.
What’s the problem? Why insist on changing the language of theology instead of understanding what theology is telling us about Christ? There is nothing wrong with what orthodox theology teaches about Christ.
The term myth has been in use in Catholic theology for a very long time, including the Christological writings of great Catholic Theologians such as Dermot Lane, Scott Hahn, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, Bonavneture and others.
It was first introduced into Catholic exegesis and mystical theology by Bonaventure in the 13th century when he was trying to clarify that mystical experiences in the life of St. Francis. It was used in its correct form, a story that conveys a truth using a particular genre of writing. In other words, myth is a style of writing. It has no reflection on the content of the writing. The reason that Bonaventure introduces it is because many of the Gospel stories use the same style as the Greek myths, as did many of the early Franciscan writings. They tell us about Christ’s actiivity in men’s lives using stories. Their content was never in question.
Myth later fell into disuse and has come into use again in recent years. Exegetes know what they mean when they use it. It really is a way that they use to communicate with each other. Most of their writings are meant for the academic community, not for the man in the pews. They are not writing catechesis. They are writing exegesis. The average man in the pews is not interested in exegesis, as it is usually very long, technical, often boring to the average person, and is not in the genre of spiritual writing, which is what the average person is looking for.
The scholar at a university is looking for something that is technical and scientific. He is not looking for a spiritual treatise, as these courses are not designed for that purpose. They are designed to help the student understand how the scriptures are constructed and the message that they convey about the nature and mission of Christ.
Let’s not confuse the purpose of different kinds of writing and research. The term myth would be inappropriate in the Catechism, thus it is described, but never used in the CCC. But it is perfectly legitimate among the writers and readership of a Bliblical journal.
Just as the average person is rarely interested in who wrote what part of every book of the bible or what year and under what circumstances, he probably has little interest in the structure of the narrative, whethere its poetic, mythical, metaphorical, legal, historical or biographical.
In the long run, it is of little spiritual help to the man in the pews who is looking for a better understanding of his life with Christ. I would not read a technical book on the literary structure of the Bible for spiritual reading. I would read a meditation on the scriptures, because it delivers what I’m looking for. On the other hand, if I’m interested in the history of the scriptures, then a technical book would meet that purpose.
Everything depends on what you’re looking for. Are you looking to learn about the miracles of Jesus? If that’s the case, don’t read a technical book on the Bible. If you’re looking to learn why they are written as they are, then a technical book is the book for you.
It’s a matter of purpose. What are you looking to learn.
That being said, it’s important to repeat, orthodox Catholic exegesis uses the term mythical or myth quite correctly, without denying the divinity of Christ or his miracles.
I can’t see the problem. As long as we know what they are trying to do, there is no damage done to our faith or the teaching of the Church with such language.
The language is not going to go away anytime soon, because it helps get the idea across from one scholar to another without needing a great deal of explanation.
Read Dermot Lane, Bonaventure, Benedict XVI and you’ll find it very technical. Benedict XVI has produced a monumental work on Jesus Christ that is extremely technical, very Bonaventurian and Augustinian, and uses much of Bonaventure’s and Augustine’s style and language to express what many believe to be simple concepts. When you read his book, he presents them in a very complex style that often requires several readings to understand.
This is the nature of exegesis. Let’s avoid confusing exegesis and Christology with dogmatic theology or with spiritual reading. That’s not it purpose nor is that its intended audience. Read it keeping in mind its purpose and its intended audience.
If you are looking for technical and philosophical explanations, then Christology and exegesis is for you. If you are looking for inspiration, these writings are not for you. You will find them very dry. But you will not find that they deny God’s power and his wonders, including his signs and miracles.
By the way, I never denied any miracle. I simply explained what we have passed down about the nativity and what Luke actually says and what he does not say. Reread my post.
Fraternally,
JR