Did Jesus REALLY do this?

[CSN]

That is hilarious, you are absolutely correct. I just checked a map and I never put 2 and 2 together, there Samaria sits, right smack dab between Galilee and Jerusalem. The desperate lengths liberals will go to.

Actually, this is what we learned just last Sunday:

(a) Yes, Samaria is between Jerusalem and Galilee.

(b) However, the Jordan river valley was the route of choice. It is flat, beside the water, and allows the traveler to avoid Samaria – the Samaritans and Jews hated each other.

(c) The direct route is also hilly.

(d) Jesus was there at noon, after having traveled over the hilly terrain. This is why he was tired.

(e) It was noon, and at that time, no one would be getting water. Women would gather in groups and get water in the early morning or in the evening, when it was cooler.

(f) The woman went alone because she was ashamed of her status (5 husbands).

(g) Jesus went out of his way, over the hilly terrain and in the hot weather, to meet with her, and told her the good news. She left her jar right away and went to tell others about Him.

(h) The fact that she left her jar there is symbolic of her leaving all of her sins that she had been carrying around with her. Jesus found her, and liberated her from them.

I thought it was pretty cool to hear this…

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

Just another liberal priest who unfortunately was taught by liberal professors.

My post was in reference to the comment about liberals. What is important is right or wrong, not liberal or conservative because error may exist on either side. I was just trying to avoid using the exact terms because I get so tired of hearing them.

I think it is important to note that the phrase *liberal priest *would be more accurately termed a *priest teaching liberal theology *or *theological modernism *in this case so as not to confuse it with liberal politics. Theological modernism is considered heresy within the Church.

 

[seekerz]

I think it is important to note that the phrase *liberal priest *would be more accurately termed a *priest teaching liberal theology *or *theological modernism *in this case so as not to confuse it with liberal politics. Theological modernism is considered heresy within the Church.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[po18guy]

This smacks of the effete group of “intellectual” snobs who called themselves the “Jesus Seminar” back in the 80s. They put forth many such “researched” efforts as: Christ didn’t really teach the “Lord’s Prayer”; he did not actually multiply the loaves and fish, since it was the community sharing what they had already brought, etc. etc. ad nauseum. This priest may very well believe that the Eucharist is only a memorial.

All you can do is ask him face to face, or write a letter. Once he disbelieves part of scripture, the rest is up for grabs. Pray for him - his faith is weak.

Christ’s peace.

 

[jcrichton]

As for your priest: even though we know only your side of the matter (what exactly did were his words ?), I don’t see anything out of order - that interpretation may be a shock, but that does not mean it’s unorthodox; it isn’t.

Hope that helps

Hi, Michael!

I believe that the OP is quoting what was claimed by someone who is supposed to be teaching from Scriptures not from his own personal opinion.

If I were to say that Jesus got lost when He was 12 years old because he was following some children with whom He wanted to play… that is an outright construction!

If I say Jesus did not find His way to the Temple that it was just a coincidence that He ended up there–that would also be of my own construct!

He had to pass through Samaria. On the way he came to a Samaritan town… When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her… (please read: St. John 4:1-42)

If we accept the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word and the Holy Scriptures state that Jesus traveled through Samaria and passed through a town in Samaria where He met a Samaritan woman by Jacob’s well then we must teach that that is what actually happened!

If you or anyone else, including me, claim that Jesus did not travel through Samaria nor that He passed through the town of Sychar where He met a Samaritan woman by Jacob’s well… well that is total fabrication or complete ignorance of Scriptures–either way it is teaching an error: heritical teaching!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Why can’t error be pointed out without categorizing people? That is exactly why many errors persist, because people are labelled as belonging to an artificial ‘good’ or ‘bad’ category. While the arguments rage on, individual errors on both sides persist unchecked. God will not judge us based on what group we belonged to but on what our individual actions were.

Hi, seekerz!

…so what would you call a liberal interpretation of Scriptures?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Here is what the priest told us, keep in mind this is a paraphrase.

He said that Jesus probably didn’t really go to Samaria and meet with the woman at the well. He gave some reasons for this. He said that this scene wasn’t in the synoptic gospels. He also pointed out that at one point Jesus had forbidden his disciples from entering Samaria. He said it was unlikely that the disciples would leave Jesus alone in the middle of the day. He said it was unlikely that a woman would leave her home to draw water in the middle of the day.

I have no problem with the literary notion that the gospel writers took from various acts and sayings of Jesus’ life and put them together so they made sense in writing. However, it seems to me that the Church teaches that all those things that the gospel writers wrote, really happened and that Jesus said the things the gospel writers say he said. I don’t know how to understand the words of Dei Verbum any other way.

Hi, ICXCNIKA!

…ever heard the expression “if you assume, you make an a…”

…this priest is assuming that everyone would gather water at Jacob’s well in an exact time of day–especially this woman who had had several lovers and was having a sexual affair with another woman’s husband (Jesus’ Word–and the one you are with is not your husband…)

…he assumes that when Jesus tells His disciples something it is “rock solid” and He Himself would not dare do what He just forbade others from doing… wrong! Several times the anti-Christian crowd geared up to stone Jesus to death… He simply walked away! Jesus did not think that His disciples were going to be killed if they traveled to Samaria–Jesus was following Scriptures which tells us that He, the Word Incarnate, came to His own and His own received Him not! There are similar scenes played out in Scriptures where Jesus emphasizes that He did not come to the Gentiles (which included Samaria) but to the Jews. Yet, when several non-Jews came to Him He did not reject them!

Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman demonstrates that the Kingdom of God is not only at hand but inclusive of the Gentiles, whose Hope He is–Prophesied in Scriptures.

Finally, if Jesus went about with His disciples or on His own, during the day and night, on the water and on land, during storms and clear weather… how strange would it be for the disciples to leave Jesus behind when He tells them to go on ahead?

…that priest is probably in the group that claims that when the woman caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus, Jesus began to write, on the ground, the sins of those who accused her and desired to stone her to death–pure conjecture!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think it is important to note that the phrase *liberal priest *would be more accurately termed a *priest teaching liberal theology *or *theological modernism *in this case so as not to confuse it with liberal politics. Theological modernism is considered heresy within the Church.

Hi!

:bowdown2:

…you are a Georgia Peach!

…you’ve shed light on this issue before it becomes politically charged!

Thanks!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mdgspencer]

You should follow Dei Verbum rather than any person who tries to teach you something that goes against it. Such statements on the part of an ecumenical council of the Church determine the Church’s teaching, and according to Dei Verbum this priest is clearly wrong. Many times I have heard strange things from the pulpit from priests I respect. Last Sunday after reading the passage about the Samaritan woman, my parish priest said the Samaritans were pagans, which isn’t really on the mark. But I thought this an unimportant mistake. If the priest who said this is otherwise good and orthodox, I wouldn’t be concerned (though of course I don’t really know what else is going on).

 

[holdencaulfield]

Just another liberal priest who unfortunately was taught by liberal professors.

The Bible says He did go to Samaria, thus He did.

Yes, enough said. Why would you want to become a priest and then only insult the Church. Sad…

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, enough said. Why would you want to become a priest and then only insult the Church. Sad…

Hi, holdencaulfield!

…I liken these to those malcontent children in Jesus’ teaching: we played happy songs and you did not dance; we played sad songs and you did not cry…

…they claim to want to serve our Lord Jesus Christ… but they want to do it on their terms–conforming Scriptures to the world rather than the world the the Scriptures… :bigyikes:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[holdencaulfield]

Hi, holdencaulfield!

…I liken these to those malcontent children in Jesus’ teaching: we played happy songs and you did not dance; we played sad songs and you did not cry…

…they claim to want to serve our Lord Jesus Christ… but they want to do it on their terms–conforming Scriptures to the world rather than the world the the Scriptures… :bigyikes:

Maran atha!

Angel

True.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How about He taught it all at once at times and in bits and pieces at other times?

There certainly is compelling evidence to me that the Sermon on the Mount (traditionally so called, Mat ch5-ch7) was single sitting of preaching.Start of Ch 5: 1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:…End of Ch7: 28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

But is that because it has been edited to suggest that - or, because it was so delivered ? The parallels to various parts of it elsewhere (as in Luke 6 - see my earlier post) don’t suggest it was said all at once. ISTM that unless there is good reason to the contrary - which there may be - Occam’s razor is applicable.​

Besides, an argument from the two verses quoted is not evidence of anything by itself - one has to see the whole of those three chapters, so as to see what clues there may be to an answer.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Here is what the priest told us, keep in mind this is a paraphrase.

He said that Jesus probably didn’t really go to Samaria and meet with the woman at the well. He gave some reasons for this. He said that this scene wasn’t in the synoptic gospels. He also pointed out that at one point Jesus had forbidden his disciples from entering Samaria. He said it was unlikely that the disciples would leave Jesus alone in the middle of the day. He said it was unlikely that a woman would leave her home to draw water in the middle of the day.

I have no problem with the literary notion that the gospel writers took from various acts and sayings of Jesus’ life and put them together so they made sense in writing. However, it seems to me that the Church teaches that all those things that the gospel writers wrote, really happened and that Jesus said the things the gospel writers say he said. I don’t know how to understand the words of Dei Verbum any other way.

That helps - thanks ​

The gospel writers wrote all sorts of things about Jesus - they record the accusation that He was a blasphemer: does it follow that He was ? If not, then the fact that a statement is made about Him does not automatically mean that statement is true. It may be a true statement of what someone else stated; IOW, it may be an accurate quotation of that other person - it does not follow that because the words of the quotation are accurate, the meaning of what is quoted must be accurate. There are such things as quotations of lies & errors, even in the Bible. But when did that make a lie true ?

Neither does the statement “Jesus did/said X” have to amount to a statement of a fact; it may be true He said or did X - or it may not. The fact of an accusation of blasphemy is no reason whatever to believe it to be true - whether one reads it in the Gospel or anywhere else. And the same holds for any other statement about Him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi, Michael!

I believe that the OP is quoting what was claimed by someone who is supposed to be teaching from Scriptures not from his own personal opinion.

If I were to say that Jesus got lost when He was 12 years old because he was following some children with whom He wanted to play… that is an outright construction!

If I say Jesus did not find His way to the Temple that it was just a coincidence that He ended up there–that would also be of my own construct!

He had to pass through Samaria. On the way he came to a Samaritan town… When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her… (please read: St. John 4:1-42)

If we accept the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word and the Holy Scriptures state that Jesus traveled through Samaria and passed through a town in Samaria where He met a Samaritan woman by Jacob’s well then we must teach that that is what actually happened!

If you or anyone else, including me, claim that Jesus did not travel through Samaria nor that He passed through the town of Sychar where He met a Samaritan woman by Jacob’s well… well that is total fabrication or complete ignorance of Scriptures–either way it is teaching an error: heritical teaching!

Maran atha!

Angel

The Holy Scriptures are in some sense God’s Word - but it does not follow that all assertions in them are true. I don’t care what Psalms 14.1 & 53.1 say: there is indeed a God, even though both verses include a remark to the contrary.​

If people want to believe there exist

• a sea-dragon (Isaiah 27.1)
• an angry lamb (Rev. 6)
• fleeing sea (Psalm 114)
• skipping hills (ditto)
• or that Jesus is a demoniac, blasphemer, liar, & deceiver (various gospel-passages)

• they’re free to; but that’s not a reason for any one else to. As for John 4 - I don’t know whether it’s stating a fact about the earthly life of Jesus, or not. The Church has said nothing that decides the question; because asserting a duty to believe that Jesus did or said a group of things, does not tell us whether or not all assertions that He did or said particular things are to be taken as statements of the actuality of those things.

Did He ascend once - or twice ? St. Luke may be foreshortening his perspective in chapter 24 - or he may not. Maybe Acts 1, maybe Luke 24, tells what really happened: the two accounts can be harmonised in more than one way, so harmonisation of them is no good at telling us what happened.

Even if He did everything He is said to have done, that is no help in identifying whether incidents recounted are the same one or not. Were there 3 encounters with the man who “went away sorrowful because he had great riches” - or are they 2 incidents ? One ? Merely to say He did everything said of Him is completely useless as a guide to knowing how many things that means. Several healings look very similar - so the question arises of whether they are related, & if so, how, & why.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

But is that because it has been edited to suggest that - or, because it was so delivered ? The parallels to various parts of it elsewhere (as in Luke 6 - see my earlier post) don’t suggest it was said all at once. ISTM that unless there is good reason to the contrary - which there may be - Occam’s razor is applicable.​

Besides, an argument from the two verses quoted is not evidence of anything by itself - one has to see the whole of those three chapters, so as to see what clues there may be to an answer.

Parallels in Jesus’ teaching here to his teaching elsewhere would do not undermine his having said all that he did at that time. Do you honestly think that each part of his teaching, he only said once? It is perfectly possible that he taught all he did in that scene in Matthew, and he taught it when he did, and he taught many of the same things many other times. And other Gospels sometimes decided to quote his teaching from those other scenes.

Most teachers do present the same facts over and over again to different people. I know that when I feel I know something about the Bible that it would help others to hear, I tell them, and then if I meet others who might find the same ideas helpful, I’ll tell them the same thing also. If I said something two days ago, my saying the same thing again today is not evidence against that having happened.

Also, Gottle of Geer, I see other problems with your arguments against taking the Bible as perfectly historically accurate.

When you talk about the Bible having accusations against Jesus, and suggest that for someone to take the Bible as absolutely literally true, they must interpret the accusations against Jesus as having been true, this fails to take into account the context. When accusations were made against Jesus, it is clear from the text that these accusations were lies. The fact that such accusations were historically made does not mean that they are true, especially as the text itself says that they were not. The Bible quotes fallible humans. The accuracy of the quotation is perfect. The accuracy of the speaker is not. That is because the text is speaking of history.

We believe that the Bible is entirely historically accurate. What it teaches to be true is true. What you are seizing upon, when you take accusations against Jesus, are things that the context will show you are not supposed to be taken as true. Therefore it is going against the text itself, interpreting off of a handful of verses while ignoring all of their context, to say that those accusations were true. One has to go against the Bible to say that, against the author’s clear meaning, rather than reading with the Bible.

Accepting something written as historical to be historical is reading with the author. To accept something the author writes is morally true to be morally true is reading with the author, also. What you do when you interpret false accusations people made against Jesus to be true is to read against the author. It’s reading against the text, rather than with it, for the surrounding verses and other parts of the book you’re discussing make clear that those accusations were false.

One can make the Bible mean anything if one snatches individual verses and throws out the surrounding verses. That is most certainly NOT a literal reading of the Bible. A literal reading of the Bible would accept that those accusations did historically occur, as the author says they did, and to see them as having been false, as the author says they were.

And your quotes from Revelation do not at all negate a literal reading of the Bible. Countless passages in the Bible describe people receiving visions or dreams from God, and usually there is symbolic imagery in them. Revelation was a vision. Therefore there is lots of symbolic imagery in it. To read such things as literal is to oppose the Biblical message about visions, rather than to accept it.

You’re throwing out all context and all of the author’s intent in order to form the conclusions you are about your version of Biblical literalism.
Gottle of Geer:

Did He ascend once - or twice ? St. Luke may be foreshortening his perspective in chapter 24 - or he may not. Maybe Acts 1, maybe Luke 24, tells what really happened: the two accounts can be harmonised in more than one way, so harmonisation of them is no good at telling us what happened.

You are right that harmonization, since it can be done in more than one way, won’t give a complete transcript of everything said, in its proper order. However, since it is obvious that these accounts are not contradictory (they only differ by omitting different things, and this is not error), they can both be accepted as true very easily, and one can learn from them. The fact that the complete scene could be organized in more than one way (and some dialogue is almost certainly missing) does not invalidate what we do have, or mean that the two accounts are “no good at telling us what happened.” Absence of some information does not negate any information that exists.
Gottle of Geer:

Even if He did everything He is said to have done, that is no help in identifying whether incidents recounted are the same one or not. Were there 3 encounters with the man who “went away sorrowful because he had great riches” - or are they 2 incidents ? One ? Merely to say He did everything said of Him is completely useless as a guide to knowing how many things that means. Several healings look very similar - so the question arises of whether they are related, & if so, how, & why.

So what?

If you’re just saying that there are a lot of true things that the Bible doesn’t say, or isn’t completely clear on, all by itself, I’m with you 100%.

 

[TMC]

You should follow Dei Verbum rather than any person who tries to teach you something that goes against it. Such statements on the part of an ecumenical council of the Church determine the Church’s teaching, and according to Dei Verbum this priest is clearly wrong. Many times I have heard strange things from the pulpit from priests I respect. Last Sunday after reading the passage about the Samaritan woman, my parish priest said the Samaritans were pagans, which isn’t really on the mark. But I thought this an unimportant mistake. If the priest who said this is otherwise good and orthodox, I wouldn’t be concerned (though of course I don’t really know what else is going on).

I don’t see how what is described goes against Dei Verbum, which does not say that Scripture is either always literal or always historically accurate.

 

[TMC]

We believe that the Bible is entirely historically accurate. What it teaches to be true is true. What you are seizing upon, when you take accusations against Jesus, are things that the context will show you are not supposed to be taken as true. Therefore it is going against the text itself, interpreting off of a handful of verses while ignoring all of their context, to say that those accusations were true. One has to go against the Bible to say that, against the author’s clear meaning, rather than reading with the Bible.

Accepting something written as historical to be historical is reading with the author. To accept something the author writes is morally true to be morally true is reading with the author, also. What you do when you interpret false accusations people made against Jesus to be true is to read against the author. It’s reading against the text, rather than with it, for the surrounding verses and other parts of the book you’re discussing make clear that those accusations were false.

I am not sure who “we” is, but the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is 100% historically accurate. Also, very little in the Bible is “written as historical” if by that it is meant that the purpose of recording it was to make a history of the event. The Bible was written for our salvation and guidance. It has great value as a historical document, but that is not its purpose.

Of the many things that I see over and over on this forum, this one never ceases to amaze me. Why do so many Catholics either misunderstand or refuse to believe what the Church teaches about Scripture? Dei Verbum is pretty clear on this, the Catechism is perhaps less straight forward, but still makes the point. The Bible is not a history text.

 

[Joe_5859]

I am not sure who “we” is, but the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is 100% historically accurate. Also, very little in the Bible is “written as historical” if by that it is meant that the purpose of recording it was to make a history of the event. The Bible was written for our salvation and guidance. It has great value as a historical document, but that is not its purpose.

Of the many things that I see over and over on this forum, this one never ceases to amaze me. Why do so many Catholics either misunderstand or refuse to believe what the Church teaches about Scripture? Dei Verbum is pretty clear on this, the Catechism is perhaps less straight forward, but still makes the point. The Bible is not a history text.

I don’t believe this thread is addressing the Bible as a whole, but primarily the Gospels.

From 19Dei Verbum:

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).

Dei Verbum is pretty clear that the Gospels are historical. They tell us what Jesus really did and taught.

Is this a blanket statement that all of Scripture contains this level of historicity? No. But the Gospels certainly do (which is the topic of this thread).

Does this mean they are historical in the sense that many people think of history? Not necessarily. Many of us today want to equate “historically accurate” with “Jesus said these exact words in this exact order”. The teaching in the Gospels is the teaching of Jesus, and the events described really happened.

So we might legitimately say that the precise formulation of the Beatitudes is not a word-for-word transcription, but certainly the general meaning of it is the same. We might legitimately argue about the proper ordering of events (to an extent) but we cannot argue that the events took place.

 

[jcrichton]

The Holy Scriptures are in some sense God’s Word - but it does not follow that all assertions in them are true. I don’t care what Psalms 14.1 & 53.1 say: there is indeed a God, even though both verses include a remark to the contrary.​

If people want to believe there exist

• a sea-dragon (Isaiah 27.1)
• an angry lamb (Rev. 6)
• fleeing sea (Psalm 114)
• skipping hills (ditto)
• or that Jesus is a demoniac, blasphemer, liar, & deceiver (various gospel-passages)

• they’re free to; but that’s not a reason for any one else to. As for John 4 - I don’t know whether it’s stating a fact about the earthly life of Jesus, or not. The Church has said nothing that decides the question; because asserting a duty to believe that Jesus did or said a group of things, does not tell us whether or not all assertions that He did or said particular things are to be taken as statements of the actuality of those things.

Did He ascend once - or twice ? St. Luke may be foreshortening his perspective in chapter 24 - or he may not. Maybe Acts 1, maybe Luke 24, tells what really happened: the two accounts can be harmonised in more than one way, so harmonisation of them is no good at telling us what happened.

Even if He did everything He is said to have done, that is no help in identifying whether incidents recounted are the same one or not. Were there 3 encounters with the man who “went away sorrowful because he had great riches” - or are they 2 incidents ? One ? Merely to say He did everything said of Him is completely useless as a guide to knowing how many things that means. Several healings look very similar - so the question arises of whether they are related, & if so, how, & why.

Hi, Michael!

I think that you are merging all values into a single equation… those who called Jesus a liar, a blasphemer, working with the devil, deceiver… were all from the religious elite whom Jesus had been challenging and whose authority He had removed–show me a person in power who simply steps aside when another deposes him; even in our “democratic” system of governance the roots run deep within the parties–so much so that they rather hinder or hurt the nation than collaborate with the opposition in a true democratic effort to build the nation and provide safety and security for the people. Bring that up a few notches, as both social power and religious control comes into play, and you’ve got the pulse on the religious elite that came to head with Jesus.

In those particular passages the Holy Scriptures does not identify Christ Jesus with such characteristics; rather, they reflect the antagonism of the religious who were threatened by Christ’s acclamations and reprimands!

Both of the passages you’ve quoted on the Psalms are reflective of non-believers not what Believers hold God to Be–this attitude, that of the “fools,” is still evident in today’s world!–some of those fools even frequent the Church, non-Catholic organizations and even Synagogues; the exception is that today’s fools are more abrasive then the Biblical ones as they expose their inner thoughts through the various media formats.

…much of your list is reflective of poetic language… to be taken literally only if you believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy (though the first has its originis on an actual Catholic Bishop); as a child I visited my grandfather’s farm where there was a river so scandalous and contrary that none could understand him: he would howl at the moon at times and when you least expected he stealthily crept up behind you; he would drag the unsuspecting into his underbelly where he would attempt to devour them… one time I saw the softer fatherly side of his… there was this city kid whose ignorance caused him to drop into his deepest pool and the ancient fellow refused to extinguish such a young life… later that day he fed the child shrimps, crabs and some blue fish… I thought, as did the child, “Life is good!”

…and it is all true, while not yet eight I almost drowned in that river… instead, later that fateful day, I gorged on all sorts of seafood wonders.

Maran atha!

Angel