Can the Bible be in Error, Historically?

[Lily_Bernans]

Origen (yes, that Origen) has some fascinating things to say about this issue, and more generally about other apparent stumbling-blocks in the Scriptures:

Basically, the seeming inaccuracies and confusing bits are there for a reason, and that reason is not necessarily to document historical events, but to offer words that are “fit for work.”

Source

Very wise words!

 

[Faith1960]

Joseph would never have left a heavily pregnant woman nor a newborn home alone.
Family would have travelled together, particularly if there was no other male in the family to stay with the mother and child.

There are so many distressing comments on this thread,

Perhaps a good book on Biblical Exegesis would be in order for the OP.
As one has stated, there are ways that these early writers put things on paper that were all about the Latin and Greek “sense” of expression, and not meant has historical in the sense that we write in the 21st century. We tend to read everything literally. That’s where so many get into trouble trying to “explain away” inconsistences.

The Bible contains the truth of our faith.
It’s lessons and writings come in all forms and reflect the culture of the day, which, of course, many of us find challenging.

What is Biblcal Exegesis?

 

[Faith1960]

It’s also a sign of accuracy that the Gospels differ in many details. The writers were eye witnesses. Everyone knows that getting a bunch of eyewitnesses to agree in every detail on a story is impossible. Everyone remembers things in light of his own experiences, which differ from person to person. Even historically, people that lived through Carter’s Presidency, will remember things differently depending on their party allegiance etc. I know the Evangelists were inspired, so wrote no error. But the incidental historical details, I believe, can be harmonized. After all, when they were initially published, had there been any historical mistakes, they would have been corrected right away. But I don’t believe there were. I think from our vantage point 2000 years later, we are unable to appreciate the circumstances of their historical texts.

But the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirt.shouldn’t that make it all historically accurate?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

What is Biblcal Exegesis?

It is a way of interpreting the Bible.

biblestudy.org/beginner/definition-of-christian-terms/exegesis.html

That might not be a Catholic site, but there is nothing in the definition in opposition to Catholic doctrine.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirt.shouldn’t that make it all historically accurate?

No, not necessarily.

*Two different types of exegesis exist. The first is called Rational and the second is called Revealed. The revealed type states that God’s Spirit is the inspiration behind the writers of the Bible. The words within the pages of Scripture are written under God’s divine inspiration and they convey his perfect will for mankind. Rational states the authors of the books of the Bible were using their own creative minds (without any influence from God) to compose their writings. *

biblestudy.org/beginner/definition-of-christian-terms/exegesis.html

As I said in the other post, I don’t think that’s a Catholic site, but there is nothing in the definition that is at odds with Catholic teaching. I just wouldn’t go exploring on that site.

 

[Faith1960]

The Church teaches that there are no errors in Sacred Scripture on any subject about which Scripture makes an assertion:

Pope Pius XII: “The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that ‘the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.’ In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical ‘not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.’ When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as ‘obiter dicta’ and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1).

Pope Leo XIII: “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

Pope Pius XII: “they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Humani Generis, n. 22).

Can you explain in English what the bolded part and it’s following mean?

 

[Faith1960]

Then most of the scholars you know are wrong.

Mt. 2: And king Herod hearing this, was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. [4] And assembling together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where Christ should be born. [5] But they said to him: In Bethlehem of Juda. For so it is written by the prophet:
[6] And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth a ruler that shall shepherd my people Israel.

This was prophesied here and every devout Jew knew the prophecy.

If Jesus was born in Nazareth, wouldn’t there be a lot of people who were there argue the text that He was born in Bethlehem?

 

[Faith1960]

Then most of the scholars you know are wrong.

Mt. 2: And king Herod hearing this, was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. [4] And assembling together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where Christ should be born. [5] But they said to him: In Bethlehem of Juda. For so it is written by the prophet:
[6] And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth a ruler that shall shepherd my people Israel.

This was prophesied here and every devout Jew knew the prophecy.

I can’t c&p on my kindle, but I just read from an archaeology site that the Gospels are wrong about Jesus being born in Bethlehem of Judea, but that it was Bethlehem of Galilee.
Again, why the discrepancy?

 

[ericc]

The bible is not inerrant. The two nativities do not match, so either Matthew or Luke is in error.

Some people have managed to harmonized the 2 nativities. The nativities were written for 2 different audiences. For Matthew, Jews and for Luke, the most excellent Theophilus, probably a Roman official. Each nativity telling a different subset of information of Christ’s birth.

1. Born in Bethlehem. Checked.
2. Laid in a manger because there is no room in the καταλύματι kataluma Luke 2:7. Many have translated kataluma to be an inn. However, the alternate translation can also mean guest chamber or guestroom (as in guestroom in a house). No stable was mentioned although many assumed manger must be in a stable. In fact in ancient Palestine, the animals are actually kept indoors during the night for safekeeping/warmth. The manger is therefore built inside the house, but living quarters are elevated to segregate animal areas at a lower level. According to Gustaf Dalmann, Sacred Sites and Ways translated from the German by Paul P. Levertoff:

the dwelling place of man and beast is often in one and the same room. It is quite the usual thing among the peasants for the family to live, eat, and sleep on a kind of raised terrace (Arab. mastaba) in the one room of the house, while the cattle, particularly the donkeys and oxen, have their place below on the actual floor (ka’ al-bet) near the door… On this floor the mangers are fixed either to the floor or to the wall, or at the edge of the terrace*

(The guestroom is also mentioned in Mark 14:14, Luke 22:11). Hence, Mary gave birth in a house (probably of friends/relatives) but Jesus was laid in the manger because the guestroom was occupied. It would be a safe assumption that the women folk helped with the delivery and the men shooed out of the house. The normal Greek word for “inn” is pandocheion, and it refers to a public house for the reception of strangers such as in Luke 10:34.

1. The family stayed in Bethlehem for a while because they needed to go to Jerusalem 5 miles away for the purification rites 40 days later. The offering of 2 turtle doves would mean that the Magis have not seen the baby yet, otherwise they family could have afford a more expensive offering.
2. In which location did the Magis actually see Jesus? Mat 2:5-8 says that when the Magis turned up checking with Herod, Herod needed to check with the chief priests and was told Christ would be born in Bethlehem. He assumed that the child will still be there and pointed the Magis towards Bethlehem. But Matthew didn’t say that was where the Magis went! They continued to follow the STAR! And the star brought them to where the child(paidion) was. Jesus is no longer a baby infant. Which means according to Luke 2:39 that would be Nazareth. And Jesus age would be 2 years and below. That was Herod’s order to kill those 2 and below while still thinking the child would still be in Bethlehem. Matthew didn’t say when the Magis turned up to see Herod, but we can presume that Herod would be able to calculate when the Magis saw the star and roughly how old Jesus would be.
3. It is obvious that the audiences were different and that the nativities were not intended to be a copy of each other, but rather different subsets of data presented to different audiences. Presenting different subsets of the same data does not mean it is an error. In stats, we do that all the time to present different views. In marketing, presenting preferential views of data differently for specific markets is common.

I welcome criticism of my harmonization of these 2 nativities. If there is a logic error, please do point out. And I’ll go back to my drawing board! When I have time, I’ll look at the crucifixion. I believe others have also harmonized them.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

They do not believe it is heresy. They lay out all the reasons for their belief. They have not been condemned by the Church, and their writings are still used in colleges and seminaries. They are not among my favorite theologians, I will say that.

As for me, I do definitely believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. To a first century Jew, “resurrection” meant nothing but bodily resurrection.

It doesn’t really matter why they believe their heresy isn’t heresy, it is heresy, if the authors of this heresy haven’t been condemned by the Church than that’s a pretty shocking oversight on the part of the Magisterium. It feels like an old heresy and a form of Gnosticism, and it’s disturbing that it’s being taught anywhere especially at the colleges you mention.

As an aside, I’ll note that rejection of the idea of the bodily resurrection of Christ is a far greater heresy than Origenism or Origen’s and Valentin Tomberg’s belief in reincarnation. The latter heresies are heresies of misguided mercy and understandable, if incorrect, the former is a heresy that is a denial of a great miracle of God, and thus a sin against the Holy Spirit.

You state that JPII quoted them, I’d be very interested to know what he quoted.

All present wonderful portraits of Jesus that take into account the historical-critical method of reading the Bible as well as the literary method.

I’m just going to note that the Bible is open to interpretation though the Holy Spirit, but isn’t really open to analysis through human mechanisms. For example, something like the Documentary Hypothesis doesn’t actually help you understand the Bible, it might say something about the human authors of X chapter of the Pentateuch but it doesn’t give you any insight whatsoever as to the nature and consequences of the Fall in Genesis, or the prefiguring of Mary in the protoevangelium or the nature of the original Light of Creation as compared to the Sun, Moon and Stars.

A big reason for this is that human critical mechanisms can only look at the Bible “in Human Time” but the Bible is written in (for lack of a better term) “God’s Time” which is an entirely different perspective on time than our strictly linear view of time.

The mythical, historical, prophetical and mystical events in the Bible have happened, will happen, and are happening simultaneously. Historically, Psalm 105 (DR, 106 in the KJV) is about a historical event, the present-day holocaust of children by Planned Parenthood and future-events that we are unaware of. Mystically, when we partake in the Eucharist we are present at the Last Supper with Christ and Christ is speaking directly to us. Prophetically, Joel can talk about a Locust plague occurring in his day and a plague of War occurring in some other time to come, or some time that has already passed. Mythologically, Adam and Eve’s sin is repeated when a woman tempts a man into preferring joining her in sin to obeying God.

We are subject to Time, God is not and neither were the writers of the scripture while writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

As a more complex example, commenting the discussion on some other thread I read from awhile ago (can’t remember which) over whether Christ was crucified on the 14th or the 15th, perhaps the answer is both. Nothing is beyond God’s power, not even altering time so that two days become one. And if you think that’s a crazy thought, I’ll simply note that were I somehow traveling near to the speed of light and somehow able to communicate with you here on Earth, one day might pass for me while two days pass for you and as Einstein taught us there is no manner or means to prefer your two-day frame of reference to my one-day frame of reference: two days are simultaneously one.

Yours in Christ,

Trevor

 

[AmbroseSJ]

But the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirt.shouldn’t that make it all historically accurate?

Yes. It is as accurate as eye witnesses can relate.

Historical discrepancies (from our vantage point) are hardly cause for concern. We are 2000 years later, and try to interpret history forensically. But it is hardly accurate. In another 50 yrs. all of today’s theories will be overturned with all new theories.

Those who live 50 yrs. from now will hold our current ignorant and unenlightened scholarship in contempt and disdain. All new worries will vex Faithful Catholics.

 

[clem456]

It doesn’t really matter why they believe their heresy isn’t heresy, it is heresy, if the authors of this heresy haven’t been condemned by the Church than that’s a pretty shocking oversight on the part of the Magisterium. It feels like an old heresy and a form of Gnosticism, and it’s disturbing that it’s being taught anywhere especially at the colleges you mention.

As an aside, I’ll note that rejection of the idea of the bodily resurrection of Christ is a far greater heresy than Origenism or Origen’s and Valentin Tomberg’s belief in reincarnation. The latter heresies are heresies of misguided mercy and understandable, if incorrect, the former is a heresy that is a denial of a great miracle of God, and thus a sin against the Holy Spirit.

You state that JPII quoted them, I’d be very interested to know what he quoted.

I’m just going to note that the Bible is open to interpretation though the Holy Spirit, but isn’t really open to analysis through human mechanisms. For example, something like the Documentary Hypothesis doesn’t actually help you understand the Bible, it might say something about the human authors of X chapter of the Pentateuch but it doesn’t give you any insight whatsoever as to the nature and consequences of the Fall in Genesis, or the prefiguring of Mary in the protoevangelium or the nature of the original Light of Creation as compared to the Sun, Moon and Stars.

A big reason for this is that human critical mechanisms can only look at the Bible “in Human Time” but the Bible is written in (for lack of a better term) “God’s Time” which is an entirely different perspective on time than our strictly linear view of time.

The mythical, historical, prophetical and mystical events in the Bible have happened, will happen, and are happening simultaneously. Historically, Psalm 105 (DR, 106 in the KJV) is about a historical event, the present-day holocaust of children by Planned Parenthood and future-events that we are unaware of. Mystically, when we partake in the Eucharist we are present at the Last Supper with Christ and Christ is speaking directly to us. Prophetically, Joel can talk about a Locust plague occurring in his day and a plague of War occurring in some other time to come, or some time that has already passed. Mythologically, Adam and Eve’s sin is repeated when a woman tempts a man into preferring joining her in sin to obeying God.

We are subject to Time, God is not and neither were the writers of the scripture while writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

As a more complex example, commenting the discussion on some other thread I read from awhile ago (can’t remember which) over whether Christ was crucified on the 14th or the 15th, perhaps the answer is both. Nothing is beyond God’s power, not even altering time so that two days become one. And if you think that’s a crazy thought, I’ll simply note that were I somehow traveling near to the speed of light and somehow able to communicate with you here on Earth, one day might pass for me while two days pass for you and as Einstein taught us there is no manner or means to prefer your two-day frame of reference to my one-day frame of reference: two days are simultaneously one.

Yours in Christ,

Trevor

Scripture is timeless in that it is the living word of God. However it is also a divine/human endeavor and so is rooted in time. Scripture exegesis must take into account the historical context. The lessons for today cannot be understood without knowing the context of the past in which scripture was written.
Christ for example was born at a specific time in a specific culture, and the Truth he conveys through parables etc…can only be fully grasped by knowing the culture he was born into. Historic knowledge with critical thinking.

 

[adrift]

Well, your suppositions are all wrong, but I’m not going to argue with you. There are many books out there on the historical Jesus, who is not the Jesus of history, by the way, that you could read to catch up. Books by very learned scholars who studied the Bible and Jesus their entire lives, in an academic setting. Ed Sanders, N.T. Wright (he’s Anglican, but he’s so conservative he’s more Catholic than Anglican), Gerald O’Collins, and Raymond Brown. All present wonderful portraits of Jesus that take into account the historical-critical method of reading the Bible as well as the literary method.

Rahner and Metz are taught in theology classes at some of the world’s most prestigious colleges and universities including Notre Dame, Marquette, Trinity College, Franciscan University, the University of Paris, etc. What they have contributed to theology is very important. JP II even quoted them on occasion and he admired at least parts of their writing.

Surely you’re not a fundamentalist who takes the Bible literally, word-for-word? I thought you were Catholic? Maybe not. My mistake.

This post is very uncharitable and full of ad hominems.

 

[adrift]

Scripture is timeless in that it is the living word of God. However it is also a divine/human endeavor and so is rooted in time. Scripture exegesis must take into account the historical context. The lessons for today cannot be understood without knowing the context of the past in which scripture was written.
Christ for example was born at a specific time in a specific culture, and the Truth he conveys through parables etc…can only be fully grasped by knowing the culture he was born into. Historic knowledge with critical thinking.

This is quite true:thumbsup:

 

[clem456]

Christianity is incarnational.

God transcends time, but he comes to meet man “in the fullness of time”.
In the Incarnation God enters human history, and that is why the Church values discovery of history and culture. Jesus is a specific person, who walked the earth at a specific time, in a specific culture, with it’s own specific modes of expression and specific customs. Part of knowing who Christ is, means to discover this time in history, The full meaning of scripture must appreciate it’s original context.

Scripture cannot be taken out of that context. So it is important to learn history and probe into details, as they are part of who Jesus Christ is. But scripture is not limited in it’s power and scope to those details, because Christ is the living God.
So, was it 3 days or two overnights etc…? We do the best we can to discover, and enter into the mystery.

 

[rnmvrck]

So what about Quirinious not being governor then?

This type of question comes up frequently and personally I believe that the entire bible is the inerrant word of God down to the lay "jot and tittel’. And although there may appear to be errors to you, doe not mean there is really is an error. Most of those that come with errors are those trying to discredit the Bible and say that it does not state accurate truth. All the “so called” errors in the bible by these people have been debunked and there are websites galore that contain answers to these types of attacks.

I am a literalist in that if I can intepret the passages literally within the context of the text I will, but recognize that there are many forms of metaphor, simile, parables, symbols used with the context of various passages. The RCC approach to allegorize much of the Bible does not agree with me as the allegory makes you cut the teher you have with reality. I beleive God says what He menas and means what He says. And i take Acts 17-11 to heart.

On Quirinnus, here is my take:

Jesus had to be born between 5 - 6 BC as Herod died in 4 B.C. and the accounts say he killed all infants between 0 and 2 before he died. The first census could not have been after 6 AD as there is no way the Mary and Joseph would have traveled to Bethlehem or a census in after 6 BC. This is all verified outside of the what the Bible says based upon Roman Empire documents examined by scholars in the first century. One of those documents which is the Deeds of Augustus placing Quirinius, who eventually became, a consul and Roman Senator, in a political position in the region around 12 BC. From 12BC until 1 AD Quirinius was in charge of several magistracies, one of which was to oversee the task of assessing the property in Syria and Judea. In 2 BC, the census was used the order by Augustus in 2 BC in to enforce an oath of allegiance to Augustus upon the people in Israel. To enforce this oath the census had to be already completed. Because of his experience Quirinius was assigned to Caius in Armenia around 1 AD. Later on after Herod’s son was dethrone, he was promoted to consul and governor. Note that the text in Luke says that Quirinius was governing not the a governor (KJV and the original Greek). Here is one of the 5 different reputable sources I used to verify this history.

You can consult documents by scholars like Justin and Terullian among others who have an established reputation for scholarly research than to believe what people recite out of Wikipedia.

 

[clem456]

This type of question comes up frequently and personally I believe that the entire bible is the inerrant word of God down to the lay "jot and tittel’. And although there may appear to be errors to you, doe not mean there is really is an error. Most of those that come with errors are those trying to discredit the Bible and say that it does not state accurate truth. All the “so called” errors in the bible by these people have been debunked and there are websites galore that contain answers to these types of attacks.

I am a literalist in that if I can intepret the passages literally within the context of the text I will, but recognize that there are many forms of metaphor, simile, parables, symbols used with the context of various passages. The RCC approach to allegorize much of the Bible does not agree with me as the allegory makes you cut the teher you have with reality. I beleive God says what He menas and means what He says. And i take Acts 17-11 to heart.

On Quirinnus, here is my take:

Jesus had to be born between 5 - 6 BC as Herod died in 4 B.C. and the accounts say he killed all infants between 0 and 2 before he died. The first census could not have been after 6 AD as there is no way the Mary and Joseph would have traveled to Bethlehem or a census in after 6 BC. This is all verified outside of the what the Bible says based upon Roman Empire documents examined by scholars in the first century. One of those documents which is the Deeds of Augustus placing Quirinius, who eventually became, a consul and Roman Senator, in a political position in the region around 12 BC. From 12BC until 1 AD Quirinius was in charge of several magistracies, one of which was to oversee the task of assessing the property in Syria and Judea. In 2 BC, the census was used the order by Augustus in 2 BC in to enforce an oath of allegiance to Augustus upon the people in Israel. To enforce this oath the census had to be already completed. Because of his experience Quirinius was assigned to Caius in Armenia around 1 AD. Later on after Herod’s son was dethrone, he was promoted to consul and governor. Note that the text in Luke says that Quirinius was governing not the a governor (KJV and the original Greek). Here is one of the 5 different reputable sources I used to verify this history.

You can consult documents by scholars like Justin and Terullian among others who have an established reputation for scholarly research than to believe what people recite out of Wikipedia.

The Catholic Church does not “allegorize” the bible.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
Note, the literal sense does not mean literalist.
Your approach to the various senses seems to be largely in line with the Church’s.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Scripture is timeless in that it is the living word of God. However it is also a divine/human endeavor and so is rooted in time. Scripture exegesis must take into account the historical context. The lessons for today cannot be understood without knowing the context of the past in which scripture was written.
Christ for example was born at a specific time in a specific culture, and the Truth he conveys through parables etc…can only be fully grasped by knowing the culture he was born into. Historic knowledge with critical thinking.

As always, I’m just some guy on the internet, but this is incorrect. God’s truth is universal and timeless, and thus is neither culturally or historically specific. If you think you are “fully grasping” Christ’s parables or any part of the Bible, generally, through a critical-historical approach you’re wrong, the Bible can only be understand through the Holy Spirit (and event then not fully as we are human and on earth: 1 Cor 13:9-10 “In part we know, and in part we prophecy”). For example, a historical-critical look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan would not see the allegorical meanings that St. Augustine saw in the Parable.

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho; Adam himself is meant; Jerusalem is the heavenly city of peace, from whose blessedness Adam fell; Jericho means the moon, and signifies our mortality, because it is born, waxes, wanes, an dies. Thieves are the devil and his angels. Who stripped him, namely; of his immortality; and beat him, by persuading him to sin; and left him half-dead, because in so far as man can understand and know God, he lives, but in so far as he is wasted and oppressed by sin, he is dead; he is therefore called half-dead. The priest and the Levite who saw him and passed by, signify the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament which could profit nothing for salvation. Samaritan means Guardian, and therefore the Lord Himself is signified by this name. The binding of the wounds is the restraint of sin. Oil is the comfort of good hope; wine the exhortation to work with fervent spirit. The beast is the flesh in which He deigned to come to us. The being set upon the beast is belief in the incarnation of Christ. The inn is the Church, where travelers returning to their heavenly country are refreshed after pilgrimage. The morrow is after the resurrection of the Lord. The two pence are either the two precepts of love, or the promise of this life and of that which is to come. The innkeeper is the Apostle (Paul). The supererogatory payment is either his counsel of celibacy, or the fact that he worked with his own hands lest he should be a burden to any of the weaker brethren when the Gospel was new, though it was lawful for him “to live by the gospel” St. Augustine, Quaestiones Evangeliorum, II, 19 –slightly abridged as cited in Dodd, C.H., The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribners, 1961), pg. 1-2.

I think this is a very interesting and morally profitable interpretation by the Saint and Doctor: I would only add that not only does the innkeeper represent the Apostle Paul but the innkeeper also represents all the Apostles, and all of us that work to the good of others as part of the Church (which I suspect is implied in the original - I was unable to find a longer translation online). We as the innkeeper are entrusted by Christ as the Samaritan with the care of our sick (physically or spiritually) brethren and whatever superogatory work we do to help them Christ will “repay” to us at our final judgement.

With respect to time, this parable is being told by Christ not just to his disciples and the listening lawyer, but also to us, directly. Again, God is not subject to time, Christ is both fully human and fully divine, and while the fully human part only “lived” on Earth from his birth until his ascension into Heaven (save for three days spent harrowing Hell & etc.) his divine part is present before creation, is present then, and is present now, so when Christ speaks in the Bible, whether in parable or elsewise, he is speaking with full and specific knowledge of all past, present and future events, and all past, present and future people who are listening, or will listen to, or read his words.

Yours in Christ,

Trevor

 

[clem456]

As always, I’m just some guy on the internet, but this is incorrect. God’s truth is universal and timeless, and thus is neither culturally or historically specific. If you think you are “fully grasping” Christ’s parables or any part of the Bible, generally, through a critical-historical approach you’re wrong, the Bible can only be understand through the Holy Spirit (and event then not fully as we are human and on earth: 1 Cor 13:9-10 “In part we know, and in part we prophecy”). For example, a historical-critical look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan would not see the allegorical meanings that St. Augustine saw in the Parable.

Trevor

It’s not incorrect, it’s the way the Church reads Scripture.
To claim that God’s truth has no cultural or historical specificity is not correct. If you mean it is not locked in literalism, they yes. The historical critical method is not about literalism.
An historical/critical examination of the parable of the prodigal son can see the full meaning. Understanding Jewish culture and customs fleshes out the parable it’s full meaning. For instance eating the hull droppings from the pigs food etc… adds cultural flavor and context to the meaning.
Not having that context limits your ability to glean the Truth in the present.

Can you go to the Church’s teaching in the catechism on the subject? I’m just some guy on the internet too, so if you want the authoritative dope on the CC and scripture, here it is:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It doesn’t really matter why they believe their heresy isn’t heresy, it is heresy, if the authors of this heresy haven’t been condemned by the Church than that’s a pretty shocking oversight on the part of the Magisterium. It feels like an old heresy and a form of Gnosticism, and it’s disturbing that it’s being taught anywhere especially at the colleges you mention.

As an aside, I’ll note that rejection of the idea of the bodily resurrection of Christ is a far greater heresy than Origenism or Origen’s and Valentin Tomberg’s belief in reincarnation. The latter heresies are heresies of misguided mercy and understandable, if incorrect, the former is a heresy that is a denial of a great miracle of God, and thus a sin against the Holy Spirit.

You state that JPII quoted them, I’d be very interested to know what he quoted.

I’m just going to note that the Bible is open to interpretation though the Holy Spirit, but isn’t really open to analysis through human mechanisms. For example, something like the Documentary Hypothesis doesn’t actually help you understand the Bible, it might say something about the human authors of X chapter of the Pentateuch but it doesn’t give you any insight whatsoever as to the nature and consequences of the Fall in Genesis, or the prefiguring of Mary in the protoevangelium or the nature of the original Light of Creation as compared to the Sun, Moon and Stars.

A big reason for this is that human critical mechanisms can only look at the Bible “in Human Time” but the Bible is written in (for lack of a better term) “God’s Time” which is an entirely different perspective on time than our strictly linear view of time.

The mythical, historical, prophetical and mystical events in the Bible have happened, will happen, and are happening simultaneously. Historically, Psalm 105 (DR, 106 in the KJV) is about a historical event, the present-day holocaust of children by Planned Parenthood and future-events that we are unaware of. Mystically, when we partake in the Eucharist we are present at the Last Supper with Christ and Christ is speaking directly to us. Prophetically, Joel can talk about a Locust plague occurring in his day and a plague of War occurring in some other time to come, or some time that has already passed. Mythologically, Adam and Eve’s sin is repeated when a woman tempts a man into preferring joining her in sin to obeying God.

We are subject to Time, God is not and neither were the writers of the scripture while writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

As a more complex example, commenting the discussion on some other thread I read from awhile ago (can’t remember which) over whether Christ was crucified on the 14th or the 15th, perhaps the answer is both. Nothing is beyond God’s power, not even altering time so that two days become one. And if you think that’s a crazy thought, I’ll simply note that were I somehow traveling near to the speed of light and somehow able to communicate with you here on Earth, one day might pass for me while two days pass for you and as Einstein taught us there is no manner or means to prefer your two-day frame of reference to my one-day frame of reference: two days are simultaneously one.

Yours in Christ,

Trevor

It depends on what you mean by “body.” Jesus was certainly not resurrected in his earthly body like Lazarus. He was resurrected in his spiritual body, his glorified body. And theologians do disagree on this point as well.

I don’t believe Adam and Eve’s sin was one of lust, of a woman tempting a man. I think it was pride. Both of them wanted to be “as gods.” They wanted to know what God knows, but God had forbidden that. They, however, disobeyed.