Did Jesus REALLY do this?

[ICXCNIKA]

I’ve brought this up before, but perhaps I need some clarity.

This morning at Mass during my diaconate training, the priest who helps train us in liturgy said during his homily that Jesus probably didn’t really go to Samaria and have a conversation with a Samaritan women ( John 4:5-42).

I keep hearing this sort of thing over and over. However, The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation says

“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)” (Chapter V, Para. 19).

So what exactly does “really did” mean? Apparently I am misunderstanding the meaning of “really did.”

Did Jesus really do the things the Gospels record that he did, or did he not?

Can someone please explain to me what Dei Verbum really means, because, according to my teachers, I’m missing it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, Jesus did do what the gospels said. There is a group called the Jesus Seminar, formed years ago, who voted on what parts of the Gospel are true and which aren’t – this is the same group that appears on the History Channel whenever the life of Christ is discussed. You have only to listen to them to realize they’re at least two beads off plumb.

But some folks get all their history (and their religion) from the History Channel.

 

[buffalo]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]

---

The Gospels are Historical

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION
is in full accord with:
The earliest Christian historians
Modern literary analysis
The doctrine of the church
Recent Church statements
The following pages contain the evidence for the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the reaction of the Church.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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

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

 

[vern_humphrey]

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

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

If you look at a map of the Holy Land as it was then, you see He had to go through Samaria. He lived in Galilee, and Samaria is between Galilee and Jerusalem. The road from Jerusalem to Galilee (and the towns of Tiberias, Magdala and Capernaum) runs right through Sychar, the town where the encounter with the Samarian woman occurred.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If you look at a map of the Holy Land as it was then, you see He had to go through Samaria. He lived in Galilee, and Samaria is between Galilee and Jerusalem. The road from Jerusalem to Galilee (and the towns of Tiberias, Magdala and Capernaum) runs right through Sychar, the town where the encounter with the Samarian woman occurred.

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.

 

[thistle]

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.

Listen I agree with all the posters comments including your first two sentences but please don’t start this stupid nonsense about traditionalists and liberals again.

 

[lizaanne]

So what exactly does “really did” mean? Apparently I am misunderstanding the meaning of “really did.”

And Clinton asked “It depends on what your definition of “is” is.”

The only reason you are misunderstanding something that is perfectly clear is because you are being taught heresy.

Call your Bishop.

~Liza

 

[buffalo]

Listen I agree with all the posters comments including your first two sentences but please don’t start this stupid nonsense about traditionalists and liberals again.

Right you are. One is either orthodox or heterodox.

 

[jcrichton]

I’ve brought this up before, but perhaps I need some clarity.

This morning at Mass during my diaconate training, the priest who helps train us in liturgy said during his homily that Jesus probably didn’t really go to Samaria and have a conversation with a Samaritan women ( John 4:5-42).

I keep hearing this sort of thing over and over. However, The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation says

“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)” (Chapter V, Para. 19).

So what exactly does “really did” mean? Apparently I am misunderstanding the meaning of “really did.”

Did Jesus really do the things the Gospels record that he did, or did he not?

Can someone please explain to me what Dei Verbum really means, because, according to my teachers, I’m missing it.

Hi, ICXCNIKA!

…as was noted, a liberal who is actually hindering the Gospel, which he swore to uphold (if he ever took the Priestly vows seriously), and those who Jesus Christ call to His Body.

Ask him, if you speak with him, to explain to you how he received such contradictory revelation.

…remember that the individual does not always adhere to the Church and your Faith in God is not tied to the errors being taught nor the persons engaged in such heresies.

I would counsel you to gather among your friends and family who frequent the same parish and observe this “Priest’s” teachings–taking notes of any heretical teachings, such as what you’ve mentioned, where he is inserting doubt into the Holy Scriptures, confront him, as a group, and demand that he cease and desist from expressing his personal opinions as though they were actual Doctrinal Teachings.

As Jesus said… if he does not–bring the matter to the attention of the Diosoce’s Bishop.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ICXCNIKA]

I was going to talk to him after Mass but he was busy debriefing the Mass with the deacon candidate in charge. I plan on emailing him as well as our formation director to ask about this. Depending on how the priest and my FD respond, I will be taking this to my bishop.

I often come away from my diaconate weekends very disheartened.

 

[seekerz]

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.

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.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ve brought this up before, but perhaps I need some clarity.

This morning at Mass during my diaconate training, the priest who helps train us in liturgy said during his homily that Jesus probably didn’t really go to Samaria and have a conversation with a Samaritan women ( John 4:5-42).

I keep hearing this sort of thing over and over. However, The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation says

“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)” (Chapter V, Para. 19).

So what exactly does “really did” mean? Apparently I am misunderstanding the meaning of “really did.”

Did Jesus really do the things the Gospels record that he did, or did he not?

Can someone please explain to me what Dei Verbum really means, because, according to my teachers, I’m missing it.

It depends what the gospels mean to say that Jesus “really did”. The thing is, that​

• what Jesus really did
  &
• what the letter of the text describes Him as doing (including His teaching) are not the same thing.
  It does not follow from a phrase such as “Jesus did X”, that the gospel is saying, “Jesus really did X, & if the media available in 2008 AD had been available then & there, in 30 AD or so, they would have recording Him doing it”.

An example: on the face of it, Jesus taught the entire content of Matthew 5 to 7 on a single occasion. There is no** compelling** reason to suppose that He did in fact teach it all at once: it is equally possible that Matthew has arranged the material in that way for literary & theological reasons. As much of the material appears in different contexts & forms in other gospels, it seems more likely that Matthew has put things said on different occasions together, probably for two reasons:

• for purposes of religious instruction (this gospel has a strong emphasis on the Church),so as to aid memorisation
• to present Jesus as “greater than” Moses. this would help explain the manner of teaching, & its content.
  The different episodes are also bound together by catchwords - which also help memorisation.

This is not an attack on the truth of the gospel - it is an attempt to understand the gospel more adequately; the question is, is this forbidden by the Constitution or the 1964 “Instruction” ? No - if it were, this kind of approach would not be praised & encouraged by the Church, or called “indispensable”. If Rome disapproved of the methods & approaches scholars generally (Catholic or not) use, it has had ever since 1943, if not before, to condemn their work - instead, it has done a great heal to spread scholarship of this type.

If the quotation had been a bit longer the meaning of “really did” might have been a bit clearer:

• 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
  The gospels are written “for [our] eternal salvation” - they are not biographies. They select events from His Life for that purpose - they are not complete lives, & don’t claim to be. It does not follow that they contain only events; still less that all of the events described happened: the Constitution is not affirming the actual reality of the Good Samaritan or of his acts. They contain a lot of interpretation; the details of this are often lost when the texts are translated, which is most regrettable. The events are included for their significance; especially their significance for the Work of Christ.

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

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why can’t error be pointed out without categorizing people? That is exactly why many errors persist, because people are labeled 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.

I never meant to imply the priest giving the homily was a bad guy, what I was saying was that those who taught him were themselves the propagators or themselves were trained by propagators this nonsense that is so rampant in modern Catholic “commentary” of Scripture where everything is up for grabs to question which results in all this “doubting” of whether Jesus really did this or that or if it was made up.

And Im not attacking you in any way, I have nothing against you, but the real reason why these errors persist is that so many of these errors are entrenched in the minds of people in high places and major “teaching” books and rooting them out is not an easy task.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

An example: on the face of it, Jesus taught the entire content of Matthew 5 to 7 on a single occasion. There is no** compelling** reason to suppose that He did in fact teach it all at once: it is equally possible that Matthew has arranged the material in that way for literary & theological reasons.

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.

 

[seekerz]

I never meant to imply the priest giving the homily was a bad guy, what I was saying was that those who taught him were themselves the propagators or themselves were trained by propagators this nonsense that is so rampant in modern Catholic “commentary” of Scripture where everything is up for grabs to question which results in all this “doubting” of whether Jesus really did this or that or if it was made up.

And Im not attacking you in any way, I have nothing against you, but the real reason why these errors persist is that so many of these errors are entrenched in the minds of people in high places and major “teaching” books and rooting them out is not an easy task.

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.

 

[JoeyWarren]

This morning at Mass during my diaconate training, the priest who helps train us in liturgy said during his homily that Jesus probably didn’t really go to Samaria and have a conversation with a Samaritan women ( John 4:5-42).

Not to be uncharitable, but this Priest needs a good blanket party. We can’t have Priests saying stuff like this.

 

[mdgspencer]

Nowadays it is important to be solidly grounded in our faith or to be able to check things out (a great value of Catholic Answers.) I am afaid that it has become desirable to check out such statements even from priests, just in order to defend our minds. I don’t like it, but it has become desirable all the same.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

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.

It depends what the gospels mean to say that Jesus “really did”. The thing is, that​

• what Jesus really did
  &
• what the letter of the text describes Him as doing (including His teaching) are not the same thing.
  It does not follow from a phrase such as “Jesus did X”, that the gospel is saying, “Jesus really did X, & if the media available in 2008 AD had been available then & there, in 30 AD or so, they would have recording Him doing it”.

An example: on the face of it, Jesus taught the entire content of Matthew 5 to 7 on a single occasion. There is no** compelling** reason to suppose that He did in fact teach it all at once: it is equally possible that Matthew has arranged the material in that way for literary & theological reasons. As much of the material appears in different contexts & forms in other gospels, it seems more likely that Matthew has put things said on different occasions together, probably for two reasons:

• for purposes of religious instruction (this gospel has a strong emphasis on the Church),so as to aid memorisation
• to present Jesus as “greater than” Moses. this would help explain the manner of teaching, & its content.
  The different episodes are also bound together by catchwords - which also help memorisation.

This is not an attack on the truth of the gospel - it is an attempt to understand the gospel more adequately; the question is, is this forbidden by the Constitution or the 1964 “Instruction” ? No - if it were, this kind of approach would not be praised & encouraged by the Church, or called “indispensable”. If Rome disapproved of the methods & approaches scholars generally (Catholic or not) use, it has had ever since 1943, if not before, to condemn their work - instead, it has done a great heal to spread scholarship of this type.

If the quotation had been a bit longer the meaning of “really did” might have been a bit clearer:

• 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
  The gospels are written “for [our] eternal salvation” - they are not biographies. They select events from His Life for that purpose - they are not complete lives, & don’t claim to be. It does not follow that they contain only events; still less that all of the events described happened: the Constitution is not affirming the actual reality of the Good Samaritan or of his acts. They contain a lot of interpretation; the details of this are often lost when the texts are translated, which is most regrettable. The events are included for their significance; especially their significance for the Work of Christ.

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

 

[jcrichton]

I was going to talk to him after Mass but he was busy debriefing the Mass with the deacon candidate in charge. I plan on emailing him as well as our formation director to ask about this. Depending on how the priest and my FD respond, I will be taking this to my bishop.

I often come away from my diaconate weekends very disheartened.

Hi, ICXCNIKA!

…I think that as Catholics too many of us just do not get involved with our Church… it is as though being part of the Body of Christ most everyone is a superfluous appendage–that has never been Christ’s Calling!

We must be an active part of the Body, supporting the clergy with not just our attendance and financial efforsts… we must get involved with every aspect of the Church and we can best serve our Priests, Pastors and Bishops if we are vigilant and proactive. We need to let them know how they are failing us and Christ. And we must be willing to put in the necessary labor in order to help halt and eradicate any erroneous teaching that may creep into the Church.

Do not be disheartened; use that energy to combat Satan (he is the one behind all of these “new age teachings”), knowing that greater is He that is in you! So, as Paul tells us, let us fight the good fight of our Catholic Faith!

I will keep you in my prayers!

Maran atha!

Angel