Bethlehem vs. Nazareth

[GandalfTheWhite]

To me, this is just another modernist heresy.

Thank you. I was dancing around it a but but you said it. I think it’s Modernism and it’s greatly destructive to our Faith.

---

Now, why is not Vatican using Bethlehem this year? I coundn’t find any good explanation on the internet and people seem to interpret it like the Church is suggesting that Jesus was perhaps not born there. I know one paper over here already said that.

 

[patg]

Yes, but doesn’t the paragraph I quoted talk specifically about the historicity of the Gospel? Chapter III speaks of Scripture in general, while Chapter V discusses the New Testament specifically–even more specific, my quote pertains directly to the Gospel.

I readily admit and have no doubt that some parts of the Old Testament are poetic, prophetic, allegorical, etc…but doesn’t the Church declare that the Gospels speak historically about the life and times of Jesus?

You should take a look at the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s ***Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***(available online). This document talks about the development of the non-literal nature of the gospel stories numerous times. A few related points:

• The gospels are not “biographies” although they contain some elements of biography.
• They are not histories although they contain a historical core.
• Their purpose is not to tell us what Jesus did, their purpose is to tell us who Jesus was.
  Just as the authors of the birth stories of Alexander the Great wrote of his divine birth surrounded by omens and portents, Luke and Matthew use similar stories and extensive symbolism to tell us who Jesus was to them.

Another good reference (with an imprimatur and nihil obstat) which discusses the Catholic position on inspiration,history, and inerrancy is Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald Witherup, S.S.

 

[patg]

First, there is no doubt that different parts of the Bible use different literary styles. The OT is for example full of poems and allegories. But you should again look what the Church says about the historic character of the Gospels describing Jesus’ life.

I have studied it thoroughly and there is no dogmatic statement related to this. I suggest the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s ***Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***(available online) if you haven’t read it.

Why would the Gospels say that he was born in Bethlehem if he actually was born somewhere else?

Actually only one gospel says this, and it is in keeping with Luke’s theme of the Messiah that he make sure to place Jesus birth precisely to fulfill a prophecy (and create a rather far-fetched census story to get him there).

Why should we believe that anything in the gospels is literal?

Yes, why should you? It is much more important to understand the meaning and symbolism than to argue over whether something actually happened or not. There is so little evidence for any of it that there is no way to support the historicity. Even the PBC and Pope Paul VI state this very clearly in the document mentioned above.

Slippery slope…

I hope it is a very quick slide to understanding.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It seems to me that while there is indeed truth to the position that the Bible has distinct literary styles, many if not all of which can be ‘read’ in several ways (allegory, poetry, etc.), those who carry it so far as to assert that the infancy narratives ARE FICTION (not even that they ‘could have ELEMENTS of literary style in PARTS which ‘emphasize’ the REALITY of the incredible TRUTH that Christ is born’), and that those who hold to a 2000 year (more or less) ‘tradition’ which has HISTORICALLY accepted that the overarching focus of the narratives is to express the MIRACULOUS TRUTH of the birth as a REAL AND TRUE EVENT, in ‘time’, with ‘real’ portents. . .are ignoring another point of view.

These same people usually are quite ‘on board’ with the idea that there is a ‘kernel’ of ‘truth’ in all religions. Correct? That God’s teachings, the moral code, etc., are found ‘written on humanity’s hearts’.

One wonders then why it could NOT be that rather than arguing that 'because Mithras or Buddha have ‘fantastic’ infancy narratives to ‘shore up’ their divinity, and THEREFORE the “christian narratives used that style to 'shore up JESUS’s DIVINITY”. . .PERHAPS ‘mithras and Buddha’s fantastic infancy narratives etc. were part of that same ‘instinct for truth’. Like the Greeks’ concept of the Unknown God. . .people were striving to ‘know’ God. They had some ‘grasp’ of the nature, of the divine, and so what they recognized as ‘divine portents’ etc. they applied to their ‘golden calf’ so to speak (Mithras, Osiris, etc.)

IOW. . .rather than the Christians ‘adapting’ the pagan script. . .perhaps it was the other way around. The pagans were dimly viewing what CHRIST and Christianity would fully BE.

So just as a child might make a clay ‘statue’ with all the ‘features’ on it that Mom or Dad might scupt, yet have those features be incomplete or unpolished–recognizably the statue, yet not the ‘finished product’ of the adult sculptor. . .the early ‘viewings’ of those early pagan ‘believers’ caught SOME of the ‘reality’ of God, yet ‘missed the mark’, so that their ‘statue’ was like that of the child.

But it seems to me that many scholar-wanna-bes today think, “Mithras was ‘first’ therefore Christianity copied”. . .ignoring that before any scuptor becomes a ‘professional’ he is a child–a beginner.

Do you really want the works of a 6 year old Michelangelo as opposed to that of the 25, 30, 40, 50 year old? Do you think his ‘real’ work was what he FIRST did, and that all his ‘later’ works are copies of those childhood ones?

So WHY do people assume the ‘works’ of the pagans are the ‘real thing’ and Christianity a Johnny-come-lately COPY?

 

[patg]

There still has been not single shred of proof that Our Lord wasn’t born in Bethlehem as Holy Scripture says. Vatican documents on the historical nature of scripture doesn’t count as primary evidence any more than a Cole’s Notes companion to King Lear gives evidence of a real King Lear.

And the gospels are* historical evidence*? You need to read what the church says about this.

I, for one, believe in the Gospel as it is written, as have hundreds of saints and millions of faithful before me, according to the Traditions of our Church. Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome, and the other prominent Church Doctors and Fathers believed, from all we have read about them, that this, as with all the Gospel, is literal, and to say otherwise is to make the grissly modernist compromise that many Anglicans have done with homosexuality, and other Christian sects with other parts of the NT.

You are free to believe that. I side with the many Catholic scholars (and a few Popes) who disagree but you and I are both within the teachings of the Church.

Also, if Our Lord didn’t fulfill this part of the Messianic prophesies, were the OT Prophets and their words about the Messiah “symbolic” as well? This almost seems to suggest that there is no Messiah.

The Jewish Messiah was prophesied to be a powerful earthly king who would lead the Jews to glory, not exactly what they got.

And as was said earlier, what else could be symbolic if the nativity, one of the most important events in the Gospels, why not the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, or the Ascencion? We would have no scholarly way of knowing what is inspired and what isn’t.

You do if you read the scholars - Raymond Brown, John Meier, Paul VI, the PBC, Margaret Ralph,…

To me, this is just another modernist heresy.

Since there is no dogmatic teaching on the literalist interpretation of the gospels, its a little tough to cry heresy.

 

[patg]

Thank you. I was dancing around it a but but you said it. I think it’s Modernism and it’s greatly destructive to our Faith.

I think it’s the only way to keep our faith alive and growing.

 

[JMMK]

I’m not going to put words in to the Pope’s mouth about why this is.

One of me PERSONAL opinions on why this might be is that the Holy Father has made several points this year concerning the importance of family. Perhaps this was intended to show that Jesus wasn’t just born in a manager and then grew up and started teaching, but that the three of them, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, lived as a family unit.

 

[Caesar]

I think it’s the only way to keep our faith alive and growing.

After reading through your posts it has become apparent that you have fallen into thoughts that are heretical in nature. If you trully believe such things as you have posted here then you have placed yourself in a state of excommunication and are separated from the Holy Church and from God.

With the utmost concern for your soul I urge you to consider what you have said in light of the infallible Traditions of the Church and recant your statements.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think it’s the only way to keep our faith alive and growing.

Patg, can you tell me why you think that those who believe in the historicity of the infant narratives are 'killing the faith?"

Because really what you are saying is that those who believe in a historically, traditionally held view (and one which is NOT contraindicated by all the ‘scholarly writings’ you have brought out, because not ONE of them says that you must DISBELIEVE those Bible texts as written, correct?) are keeping our faith FROM growing.

 

[patg]

After reading through your posts it has become apparent that you have fallen into thoughts that are heretical in nature.

I have not said anything that is original with me - everything is taken from Church documents and books by the Church’s most esteemed scripture scholars, most of which have the *imprimatur *and nihil obstat. Are these the heresies you speak of?

If you trully believe such things as you have posted here then you have placed yourself in a state of excommunication and are separated from the Holy Church and from God.

First there would have to be some dogmatic teaching on this subject, which there isn’t. The Church has made dogmatic statements on interpretation of only a tiny handful of biblical passages (and the infancy narratives are mostly not included).

Second, I fully believe everything I have said here. I don’t mind agreeing with Pope Paul VI or the great scholars of the Church. I was separated from the Church until I learned what the Church really teaches about scripture analysis - studying the ideas I have presented is what brought me back. I can recommend some good books if you want to catch up.

With the utmost concern for your soul I urge you to consider what you have said in light of the infallible Traditions of the Church and recant your statements.

Recant? I help teach such things to other Catholics every week. Have you asked Pope Paul VI to recant?

And since when are the birth narratives Infallible Traditions???

 

[mark_a]

How can a Catholic answer claims that the Vatican’s decision to display Joseph’s workshop in Nazareth rather than a traditional manger scene in Bethlehem means that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and the Bible is wrong?

This is being preached by one of our priests, who also claims that manger scenes should be burned and Luke’s Infancy Narratives should be disregarded (if not pulled out of your Bible). He claims that the Infancy Narratives of Luke were made up, written later, and added in order to harmonize the coming of Jesus with the Messianic prophecies.

Any guidance would be much appreciated!

Thank you and God bless you.

Henrietta K.

This seems like the perfect stance for anti-Catholic, anti-Mary Protestants who ignore the foreshadowing of the Mary as the ark of the new covenant as shown by 2Samuel chapter 6 (ark coming to David) and 1st chapter of Luke (the visitation).

 

[JMMK]

Well you would be assuming that the Nativity narrative was added long after the fact. I doubt Luke could get away with the statement about “the whole world” and “going to their own towns” in the living memory of Jesus. This would have to be an addition to the teachings long after the fact by someone else.

Many scholars hold Luke’s gospel to be aimed at a non-Jewish audience, so why would it go so far and so thin to relate to the Jewish Scriptures when speaking to people who would be entirely unfamiliar with the Messianic prophecies?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I have just read the article about the nativity at ST. Peters. I find it disturbing to try and say that Our Lord was born in Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. As both Matthew and Luke place the birth in Bethlehem.

 

[stmaria]

=Pious Mat;3101790]
Also, if Our Lord didn’t fulfill this part of the Messianic prophesies, were the OT Prophets and their words about the Messiah “symbolic” as well? This almost seems to suggest that there is no Messiah.

And as was said earlier, what else could be symbolic if the nativity, one of the most important events in the Gospels, why not the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, or the Ascencion? We would have no scholarly way of knowing what is inspired and what isn’t.

To me, this is just another modernist heresy.

It does seem to fit that description.

Pascendi- doctrine of the modernists
"The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming generally that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed from a primitive brief narration, by additions, by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only for the purpose of joining different passages together. This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with the evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of it. Indeed, this history they actually do write, and with such an easy assurance that one might believe them to have seen with their own eyes the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their assured verdict as to whether a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can judge how far they are qualified in this way to make such distinctions. To hear them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men.

 

[patg]

Patg, can you tell me why you think that those who believe in the historicity of the infant narratives are 'killing the faith?"

I don’t think that at all and I didn’t mean to imply that I did. The Church allows you to believe that just as it allows me to believe otherwise. My statement was meant to emphasize that we still have a long way to go in our understanding and that a growing living faith shouldn’t enforce a literalist mentality that hinders that growth.

Because really what you are saying is that those who believe in a historically, traditionally held view (and one which is NOT contraindicated by all the ‘scholarly writings’ you have brought out, because not ONE of them says that you must DISBELIEVE those Bible texts as written, correct?) are keeping our faith FROM growing.

No, the church does not require belief in either view (or anything in between. I do believe that an openness to a deeper understanding of what a gospel is, why it was written, and the situation of the author’s time and culture are far more “faith growing” than the insistence on a literalistic historicity which the texts do not support and which can cause the reader to miss much of symbolism and meaning.

 

[patg]

It does seem to fit that description.

Pascendi- doctrine of the modernists
"The Modernists have…quote]
Too bad Pius X can’t debate Paul VI, Pius could learn a thing or too about scripture study.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Now, why is not Vatican using Bethlehem this year? I coundn’t find any good explanation on the internet and people seem to interpret it like the Church is suggesting that Jesus was perhaps not born there. I know one paper over here already said that.

I’m not going to put words in to the Pope’s mouth about why this is.

One of me PERSONAL opinions on why this might be is that the Holy Father has made several points this year concerning the importance of family. Perhaps this was intended to show that Jesus wasn’t just born in a manager and then grew up and started teaching, but that the three of them, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, lived as a family unit.

Here’s a bit of an article explaining it:

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 19, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The unique Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square is a reminder from our teaching Pope of a father’s importance in the family, says Christian art expert Elizabeth Lev. …

"It is trying to represent Joseph’s experience, his dream of what will happen knowing that Jesus will be born and Mary is with child. He had no idea the way it would all work out as he prepared to take on this task given to him by God through a message of an angel. So it is what he imagines in his home amid his work before it comes to pass …

"Joseph is never the star of the Nativity, but his role is crucial. So this is not upsetting biblical tradition, but [giving] a different facet, looking at it in a different light …

“… this Nativity makes present the importance of the father figure and the fact that he is essential. It’s a reminder that he wasn’t born only to a mother, while providing a source of meditation during this time when we are faced with the battle against marriage and the family …”

You can read the rest of the article here: zenit.org/article-21335?l=english

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Here’s a bit of an article explaining it:

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 19, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The unique Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square is a reminder from our teaching Pope of a father’s importance in the family, says Christian art expert Elizabeth Lev. …

"It is trying to represent Joseph’s experience, his dream of what will happen knowing that Jesus will be born and Mary is with child. He had no idea the way it would all work out as he prepared to take on this task given to him by God through a message of an angel. So it is what he imagines in his home amid his work before it comes to pass …

"Joseph is never the star of the Nativity, but his role is crucial. So this is not upsetting biblical tradition, but [giving] a different facet, looking at it in a different light …

“… this Nativity makes present the importance of the father figure and the fact that he is essential. It’s a reminder that he wasn’t born only to a mother, while providing a source of meditation during this time when we are faced with the battle against marriage and the family …”

You can read the rest of the article here: zenit.org/article-21335?l=english

Thank you. I looked for some explanation on Zenit but I strangelly I missed this article. I’m so glad that it’s actually not tryig to say that Jesus might have not been born in Bethlehem. Uuuuf.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I think it’s the only way to keep our faith alive and growing.

I see. Does it have something to do with the fact that the more we look at the Bible as some kind of “alegory”, the less faith is required from us? It’s too much for the modern men to believe in miricles and that jazz, isn’t it? For some it might even be easier that Jesus actually never multiplied any bread. Surelly the authors of the Gospels were just not being literal there. It’s all just an alegory to some “deeper and spiritual meaning”. I just got reminded of this methodist preacher, my friend was telling me about, who said that the ressurection was only spiritial.

Sure it might require less faith and keep it alive for some. But only for a while before it dies out.

I will say it again - it’s Modernism that can only lead people to the slipery slope, the slope on which many modern biblical scholars already stepped on.

“The great argument used now against any theological proposition is not, that it is untrue, or unthinkable, or unedifying, or unscriptural, or unorthodox, but simply, that the modern mind cannot accept it.”

• Ronald Knox

Actually only one gospel says this, and it is in keeping with Luke’s theme of the Messiah that he make sure to place Jesus birth precisely to fulfill a prophecy (and create a rather far-fetched census story to get him there).

I see, so the prophesies are only fulfiled on the paper. Great, but I can do that as well.

 

[patg]

I will say it again - it’s Modernism that can only lead people to the slipery slope, the slope on which many modern biblical scholars already stepped on.

I assume you include Pope Paul VI as one leading us down that slippery slope. The document on modernism was aimed at the excesses of interpretation that had accompanied some “modernist” exploration of the scriptures. Its language and ideas are caught up in the pre-scientific viewpoint and at that time the Church was not yet making the distinction between lack of error in scientific and historical teaching and the lack of error in moral and religious truth. Fortunately, most of those teachings have been laid to rest.

“The great argument used now against any theological proposition is not, that it is untrue, or unthinkable, or unedifying, or unscriptural, or unorthodox, but simply, that the modern mind cannot accept it.”

• Ronald Knox

It is hard to admit that we have learned a few things and that the knowledge may require us to rethink a few entrenched misunderstandings (sometimes called “traditions”). Ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking. Such a lie undermines Christian practice and spirituality.

I see, so the prophesies are only fulfiled on the paper. Great, but I can do that as well.

Yes, anyone can and recognizing that fact is important when studying any document. It takes faith to believe, not words on paper.