C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Even if he wasn’t born in Nazareth, does that really matter? Jesus lived and died for mankind. His life was the truest thing ever recorded. What he taught and how he loved is what matters.
- Status
S
Sirach2
Guest
No need to answer – I know you are not Catholic. Not even Christian. One of the zillions who manufacture their own belief system based on nebulous research.
A
adrift
Guest
Yes it matters. This Blog explains why.
Those who say He was not born in Bethlehem have to ignore the Gospel of Matthew
and Luke
The fact that he was raised in Nazareth has led to the erroneous jump that He was born there. Most historians say He was born in Bethlehem since that is the only written record we have. Only those who wish to discredit Jesus claim otherwise.
T
Trevor_Dewey
Guest
As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t think the Catechism is all that helpful for laypeople as the Catechism wasn’t written for laypeople. The Catechism was written for Bishops who have years of training and experience. To put it another way: the Catechism is almost always correct, but rarely helpful.
I’ll note a couple of things:
- What you quoted is only concerned with interpretation/exegesis and doesn’t cover what I termed the “prayerful” reading of scripture or the “mystical” reading of scripture.
Mystical reading is distinct from exegesis in that exegesis is concerned with the means of understanding a biblical passage while mystical reading is concerned with developing an intuitive connection to a passage, without or rather beyond, what we usually mean by the term “understanding.” If we consider prayerful reading as invocatory, the use of Scripture to reach out to God, perhaps we can consider mystical reading as evocatory, the use of Scripture to (for lack of a better phrase) bring God to you.
An example (perhaps a terrible example since I am not a mystic) of a mystical reading might be to read an account of The Passion, deeply contemplating Christ’s suffering, trying to imagine what it might be like to have been wounded as Christ was wounded, or to try and imagine and feel the emotions of his Blessed Mother and Disciple as they watched Our Lord be crucified. This is distinct from a literal or figurative reading because the mystical reader in this example is trying to intuit emotions and feelings that are not in the actual text. An alternative example of a mystical reading, might be to meditate on a gospel passage or psalm, for the purpose of entering a trance-like/mystical state where you are more receptive to God.
- The division of the four exegetical categories into what the Catechism calls “literal” or “spiritual” is somewhat arbitrary with the CCC’s “spiritual” category falling somewhat under what I would term “figurative”: that is to say allegorically, metaphorically, analogically or anagologicaly (but see final point). Note that I’m trying to find the source of the CCC’s statement regarding this division, per point three and four.
- Now with respect to the category of “moral” and the CCC’s allocation of it to the “spiritual” category makes me question the correctness of CCC 115-118.
The CCC cites St. Paul stating that we read the Bible for “our instruction” but this is a statement by the Apostle as to why we read the Bible, not how as to how we read it. In 1 Corinthians x, cited by the CCC, St. Paul recites the various sins of the Israelites during the Exodus (that is he reads the Bible historically and literally, though he also reads it figuratively with respect to the Parting of the Red Sea) and notes that these are examples of things “not to do” and as cited by the CCC are in the Bible, in part, for our instruction. In other words, the moral understanding of stories in the Bible (sometimes called the didactic understanding) is something we get from the Bible reading it literally or figuratively, just as we get historical understanding or sapiential understanding or prophetical understanding, and that’s a completely different thing from how to read the bible.
- Which brings us to the traditional division of the books of the Bible and the contents of those books into Historical, Didactic, Sapiential, and Prophetical categories. So it seems (at first) that the CCC and the Medieval Couplet they are quoting here, seems to be conflating two completely different things the “Why/What” and the “How”.
I believe the CCC gets the couplet, and this section, wrong.
The couplet cited in the CCC is better read as a statement on the types of books in the Bible: “The Letter for Deeds, Allegory to Faith, Moral to Acts, Anagogy to Destiny” is a direct reference to the subject matter in the bible and the ancient division of books into Historical, Sapiential, Didactic and Prophetical categories. It’s a statement on “what” not “how”.
I am sure I am in the minority on this, but so be it.
Yours in Christ,
Trevor
F
Faith1960
Guest
F
Faith1960
Guest
Daddy Girl, did you ever answer if you’re a Christian?
F
Faith1960
Guest
I rarely understand the CCC and even less, does it answer my questions.As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t think the Catechism is all that helpful for laypeople as the Catechism wasn’t written for laypeople. The Catechism was written for Bishops who have years of training and experience. To put it another way: the Catechism is almost always correct, but rarely helpful.
I’ll note a couple of things:
Prayerful reading can be considered invocatory (or alternatively supplicatory) reading: it occurs when a selection from the Bible or a Psalm is read in Church as part of Mass, or when, for example, you read privately a penitential psalm as you pray for forgiveness, or even when an exorcist reads from a psalm or a gospel to drive out a demon. In all these cases, the Holy Scripture is not being read for what the CCC calls it’s literal, moral, allegorical, or anagological sense (though the Priest presiding over the Mass, may, during the homily refer to the readings in one or more of these literal or figurative senses) but as a part of a public or private supplication to God for Him to express his power and grace for a particular purpose.
- What you quoted is only concerned with interpretation/exegesis and doesn’t cover what I termed the “prayerful” reading of scripture or the “mystical” reading of scripture.
Mystical reading is distinct from exegesis in that exegesis is concerned with the means of understanding a biblical passage while mystical reading is concerned with developing an intuitive connection to a passage, without or rather beyond, what we usually mean by the term “understanding.” If we consider prayerful reading as invocatory, the use of Scripture to reach out to God, perhaps we can consider mystical reading as evocatory, the use of Scripture to (for lack of a better phrase) bring God to you.
An example (perhaps a terrible example since I am not a mystic) of a mystical reading might be to read an account of The Passion, deeply contemplating Christ’s suffering, trying to imagine what it might be like to have been wounded as Christ was wounded, or to try and imagine and feel the emotions of his Blessed Mother and Disciple as they watched Our Lord be crucified. This is distinct from a literal or figurative reading because the mystical reader in this example is trying to intuit emotions and feelings that are not in the actual text. An alternative example of a mystical reading, might be to meditate on a gospel passage or psalm, for the purpose of entering a trance-like/mystical state where you are more receptive to God.
I will note it is not figurative when God writes “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, that’s a literal statement of God’s moral law, while many of Christ’s parables are, or contain, figurative statements of God’s moral law. So the Moral Law is presented to us literally and figuratively.
- The division of the four exegetical categories into what the Catechism calls “literal” or “spiritual” is somewhat arbitrary with the CCC’s “spiritual” category falling somewhat under what I would term “figurative”: that is to say allegorically, metaphorically, analogically or anagologicaly (but see final point). Note that I’m trying to find the source of the CCC’s statement regarding this division, per point three and four.
- Now with respect to the category of “moral” and the CCC’s allocation of it to the “spiritual” category makes me question the correctness of CCC 115-118.
The CCC cites St. Paul stating that we read the Bible for “our instruction” but this is a statement by the Apostle as to why we read the Bible, not how as to how we read it. In 1 Corinthians x, cited by the CCC, St. Paul recites the various sins of the Israelites during the Exodus (that is he reads the Bible historically and literally, though he also reads it figuratively with respect to the Parting of the Red Sea) and notes that these are examples of things “not to do” and as cited by the CCC are in the Bible, in part, for our instruction. In other words, the moral understanding of stories in the Bible (sometimes called the didactic understanding) is something we get from the Bible reading it literally or figuratively, just as we get historical understanding or sapiential understanding or prophetical understanding, and that’s a completely different thing from how to read the bible.
However, it only seems that way, I’m actually very glad you quoted this, I have read this section of the CCC long ago, and it didn’t stick with me (clearly), but now having looked at it with the benefit of some experience since you quoted it to me, I have to say this is the first time I felt necessary to write the sentence “almost always correct, but usually not helpful” instead of just “correct, but usually not helpful” with respect to the CCC. As noted in point 3, pending a review of the source material that the CCC bases the whole of this section on, it just isn’t correct to say we read the Bible in a “moral sense” we read the Bible to build our “moral sense”.
- Which brings us to the traditional division of the books of the Bible and the contents of those books into Historical, Didactic, Sapiential, and Prophetical categories. So it seems (at first) that the CCC and the Medieval Couplet they are quoting here, seems to be conflating two completely different things the “Why/What” and the “How”.
I believe the CCC gets the couplet, and this section, wrong.
The couplet cited in the CCC is better read as a statement on the types of books in the Bible: “The Letter for Deeds, Allegory to Faith, Moral to Acts, Anagogy to Destiny” is a direct reference to the subject matter in the bible and the ancient division of books into Historical, Sapiential, Didactic and Prophetical categories. It’s a statement on “what” not “how”.
I am sure I am in the minority on this, but so be it.
Yours in Christ,
Trevor
F
Faith1960
Guest
Wow. That makes me wonder about all of the Bible, now.
E
estesbob
Guest
The point is you haven’t given any sources.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Why be so nitpicky about a tiny portion of his life? Mathew was trying to prove that the Old Testament had all the answers to Jesus and Luke was basically telling a historical narrative. The most truthful of the Gospels is Mark, which was written first. If people get too caught up in whether one little item in the Gospels is not historically accurate, they are going to just give up on the whole thing unless they read them in the spirit of our Lord. The message of all the Gospels is that Jesus was the son of God who died for the world to redeem it.
P
pianistclare
Guest
Ay yay yay.
There is always context. Most of the occurrences in the OT were to foreshadow the events in the NT. They were looking toward the Messiah. The fact that Jesus was born in a town called “House of Bread” was SIGNIFICANT to the Jewish people. Or at least it should have been.
Please view thing in their proper context and the culture of the day.
I don’t’ have time to tackle each thing individually, but after 2000 years of Theologians and church fathers, and people begin thinking that one website debunks it all.
Amazing.
P
pianistclare
Guest
Facts are never nitpicky.
There are truths of the faith. Don’t you realize that people are always trying to debunk Christianity and Jesus in particular.
R
rose_kelly
Guest
Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? - Wikipedia
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Only because some Christians insist upon being literalists.
F
Faith1960
Guest
So there are some historical errors but it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and came to redeem the world?
C
clem456
Guest
What do you mean by error? There are discrepancies in the accounts of the crucufixion. Are those discrepancies errors? All accounts were written under the inspiration of the holy spirit. Yet they differ.
Inspiration does not demand historicity. Inspiration overcomes contradictions and varying human perceptions. Scripture accounts can have varying or contradictory details, or can be contrary to scientific facts, and still be innerrant and inspired.
It’s important to remember that the holy spirit does not violate human free will. The holy spirit does not giide the pen of the author as if a robot.
It’s also important to remember that before the scriptures were committed to writing they were oral tradition. Some old testament passages were hundreds of years in the making before put into writing.
Scripture is very messy.
P
pianistclare
Guest
In addition, the scribes of the day did not have the benefit of world maps, mass communication, and they were writing to a particular audience. In Luke, he’s writing to predominantly Gentiles. He’s not going to go into all the Jewish laws with them, because it means nothing to them.
I suggest that folks look into a parish that teaches “the Bible Timeline series”.
it’s very informative.
Most of the questions here come from sketchy catechesis.
Get into classes if you want know more. It would take thousands of pages of forum responses to address every point.
Plus, one of the posters here has asked the same question every year for four years.
If one can’t or simply WON’T accept an answer, they should either seek info elsewhere or stop asking.
:twocents:
I’m out.
T
Trevor_Dewey
Guest
There weren’t any historical errors in the books of the Bible as written (though note caveat), for the most part if you think there’s an error then it’s because you’re reading something literally that should be read figuratively. The caveat is that there were copyist errors, an example that comes to mind is the Joiada son of Banaias entry that is most likely an error and should probably be Banaias son of Joiada in the Douay-Rheims.
F
Faith1960
Guest
So what about Quirinious not being governor then?
- Status