I dont belive this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shellac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shellac

Guest
I am part of a Bible study for Lent. The Person doing the study will say things that drives me nuts. For her the whole synoptic problem is to take is a fact the whole Two-source hypothesis. It bugges me that she teaches it as if it is a fact. She will also say stuff like Matt 16:24 "Jesus would never say “take up your cross” as it would not make sence to this followers. This was added latter by people. Also Matt 17:24-27.never happend. :mad:tthis is just a nice story in her mind.

So here is the thing. Am I getting mad at nothing at all or would it drive you guys nuts as well?
 
Shellac said:
I am part of a Bible study for Lent. The Person doing the study will say things that drives me nuts. For her the whole synoptic problem is to take is a fact the whole Two-source hypothesis. It bugges me that she teaches it as if it is a fact. She will also say stuff like Matt 16:24 "Jesus would never say “take up your cross” as it would not make sence to this followers. This was added latter by people. Also Matt 17:24-27.never happend. :mad:tthis is just a nice story in her mind.

So here is the thing. Am I getting mad at nothing at all or would it drive you guys nuts as well?
Click to expand...
Shellac,
I can only speak for me. It would drive me nuts, so much so I would probably have to leave the group.

I am not fond of having study groups where the one leading it injects their personal opinion. And considering it’s Lent, it would make it very hard for me, especially because it’s Lent, to be charitable, which can be a challenge for me anyhow.

Don’t know what you are going to do, but I pray the Holy Spirit will guide you so that your Lent is fruitful and grace-filled.

God Bless
 
If I were you, then I would do research on that person’s statements and if possible, debate them with the counter argument in your next Bible study. Just because that person says it, doesn’t mean its a fact.

Make sure your debate is public and that the other Bible study individuals can all witness it, so that if you have the facts on your side, then it will shatter your oponents position in their view.
 
This would bug the heck out of me as well because it isn’t in line with Catholic teachings.

I would probably research it more and then state my objections next time I was there. I may consult the priest of the parish as well because this isn’t the type of person that should be teaching bible studies to Catholics.
 
Shellac said:
I am part of a Bible study for Lent. The Person doing the study will say things that drives me nuts. For her the whole synoptic problem is to take is a fact the whole Two-source hypothesis. It bugges me that she teaches it as if it is a fact. She will also say stuff like Matt 16:24 "Jesus would never say “take up your cross” as it would not make sence to this followers. This was added latter by people. Also Matt 17:24-27.never happend. :mad:tthis is just a nice story in her mind.

So here is the thing. Am I getting mad at nothing at all or would it drive you guys nuts as well?
Click to expand...
No - I don’t think you are getting “mad” at nothing, though I would be careful about how you get mad…

I just recently had someone on another site ( a non-catholic) do the same thing. I brought up the episode about stoning the adultress in a conversation and he came back with how there is scholarly opinion that this event was added later…blah blah blah…

I advised him that I had no intention of taking “scholarly opinion” over what the Holy Spirit, through the Church, had chosen to have recorded in the bible we use today.

I believe that I would take the same approach in this case. While it is an interesting theory, I wonder how this person knows that Jesus would never say…or make reference to the Cross. Does she know that in that time and place “carrying a cross” was not an analogy for bearing a burden or sorrow? I don’t think that she can know this so what she is giving is nothing more than “Scholarly opinion” that we can take or leave…

The Bottom line is that The Holy Bible protected by the Holy Spirit, assembled and taught from by The Church, contains this passage and the Holy Spirit places these sayings on the lips of Christ. That’s good enough for me - and way better than “Scholarly opinion”…

Peace
James
 
Shellac said:
I am part of a Bible study for Lent. The Person doing the study will say things that drives me nuts. For her the whole synoptic problem is to take is a fact the whole Two-source hypothesis. It bugges me that she teaches it as if it is a fact. She will also say stuff like Matt 16:24 "Jesus would never say “take up your cross” as it would not make sence to this followers. This was added latter by people. Also Matt 17:24-27.never happend. :mad:tthis is just a nice story in her mind.

So here is the thing. Am I getting mad at nothing at all or would it drive you guys nuts as well?
Click to expand...
Yes it would probably drive me nuts too, in fact I’ve been in similar situations. At the time I felt I needed to bite my tongue because of the size of the group and I didn’t want to embarrass anyone. She is entitled to her opinion after all. But when I had a chance I would (respectfully) speak up about my own interpretations and reasons for thinking something.

The sentence highlighted is an example. Crucifixions were commonplace in those days so Jesus’ followers would almost certainly know what he meant by “pick up your cross”.
 
She thought that he said “something” close to the meaning of cross. She thinks that the “Cross” was added after his death and reseriction. They may not mean to yet they seem smug about their “mature faith”. It also seems that their sceptisim of the Bible makes them feel smarter.
 
Shellac said:
I am part of a Bible study for Lent. The Person doing the study will say things that drives me nuts. For her the whole synoptic problem is to take is a fact the whole Two-source hypothesis. It bugges me that she teaches it as if it is a fact. She will also say stuff like Matt 16:24 "Jesus would never say “take up your cross” as it would not make sence to this followers. This was added latter by people. Also Matt 17:24-27.never happend. :mad:tthis is just a nice story in her mind.

So here is the thing. Am I getting mad at nothing at all or would it drive you guys nuts as well?
Click to expand...
Believe it. Liberalism has been running rampant in the Church for a few decades, and is only now starting to be rooted out. And you should get mad - just don’t let it affect good judgment. Your “Catholic sense” is spot-on, since she is distorting Catholic truth by unknowingly parroting liberal theories (at best) and liberal falsehoods (at worst).

You should probably leave the group (since the leadership is incompetent in the subject of Catholic Bible study, and I mean that charitably), because it will be of negative spiritual benefit to you in the long run. However, before you leave you should bring up during a session some quotes from Catholic sources on the subject of Inerrancy, in which Catholics believe as Dogma that there are no errors in Scripture since it is 100% inspired. Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus 20f):
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 the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it — this system cannot be tolerated.

Pope St Pius X (Lamentabili Sane):

Condemned Liberal Error #1.] The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.

Condemned Liberal Error #9.] They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

Condemned Liberal Error #11.] Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

Condemned Liberal Error #12.] If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.
  1. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.
  2. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.
  3. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.
  4. The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.
  5. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves
  6. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline and not evangelical. This kind of touches upon your “take up your Cross” quote]
  7. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.
 
What kind of Bible study is this, Catholic or non Catholic? If non Catholic get out of it. If Catholic find out what qualifications the leader has to lead such a study group. If none then get out of it as well and report it to your pastor iof he is not aware of it. If he is aware of it then report it to your bishop.
 
Shellac said:
I am part of a Bible study for Lent. The Person doing the study will say things that drives me nuts. For her the whole synoptic problem is to take is a fact the whole Two-source hypothesis. It bugges me that she teaches it as if it is a fact. She will also say stuff like Matt 16:24 "Jesus would never say “take up your cross” as it would not make sence to this followers. This was added latter by people. Also Matt 17:24-27.never happend. :mad:tthis is just a nice story in her mind.

So here is the thing. Am I getting mad at nothing at all or would it drive you guys nuts as well?
Click to expand...
Yes it would make sense, as seagal said. It was a common form of Roman execution (criminals, slaves, foreigners). I think I read it started in Rome ~ 2nd century bc. Jesus’ disciples would have easily equated ‘taking up a cross’ as having to do with one’s death. Once you were at the stage in an execution where you have a cross on your back you know your death is assured (like our system of capital punishment, once you’ve been given a last meal and are strapped onto the gurney death is assured).

I just read something about this, Matt 16:24, today, thought I’d share it

“To take up one’s cross means you are under the sentence of death; you are taking up the horizontal cross-member on your way to the place of crucifixion. You have abandoned all hope of life in this world. And then Jesus says, and only then, are we ready to follow him.” (Scandalous, Carson)
 
Shellac said:
I am part of a Bible study for Lent. The Person doing the study will say things that drives me nuts. For her the whole synoptic problem is to take is a fact the whole Two-source hypothesis. It bugges me that she teaches it as if it is a fact. She will also say stuff like Matt 16:24 "Jesus would never say “take up your cross” as it would not make sence to this followers. This was added latter by people. Also Matt 17:24-27.never happend. :mad:tthis is just a nice story in her mind.

So here is the thing. Am I getting mad at nothing at all or would it drive you guys nuts as well?
Click to expand...
I would be driven to take over the Bible study myself, and do the thing right. 😃
 
jmcrae said:
I would be driven to take over the Bible study myself, and do the thing right. 😃
Click to expand...
It sounds like the study is non Catholic. And if it is, then it may be the person may not be aware of the value of uniting suffering in one’s life to that of Jesus’ suffering on the cross. For Jesus did say,“take up you cross and follow me daily.” That means everyday of our lives we have sufferings and everything is of value if offered to Jesus out of love for Him. That person may not understand or accept this notion because of what their particular faith teaches. For example, some believe that all evil, is from the devil, and that means suffering as well. So in their case their interpretation would be that Jesus says take from the devil bad stuff. This of course would be wrong to them since Jesus came to free us from the devil.

You might ask them where the difficulty lies in accepting that particular passage.

Then you might explain that God uses evil to bring about good, the main example of this being the Cross which Jesus suffered on brought Redemption to mankind even tho that was a very evil thing He underwent. He was innocent yet suffered for us. We too can be innocent of our sufferings yet offered up for ourselves and for others it brings about good.

This is another reason they may reject suffering. Since Jesus died, we no longer have to suffer since He did it for us which makes our suffering for naught. But Paul said something like “I make up for the sufferings that are lacking to Christ”, or something very similar to this.

Well anyway, hang in there and ask questions politely, then next time it comes up, and it will, you will know what to say.​

“…love everyone, especially the brethern.” Saul the murderer, Paul the convert.
 
This is the sort of reason that I started studying the Bible on my own, at my own pace, and with the materials of my choosing.

the statement attributed to Jesus about taking up your cross and following Hiim has bothered me for a long time.

There’s may be three issues involved.
  1. maybe Jesus said it, like it says
  2. maybe Jesus said it at a different time, and it was inserted there
  3. did Jesus say it?
these are hard-edged questions from the historical-critical point of view.

There’s other moments in the gospels that raise questions, too, like, how does anybody know what Jesus was praying in the garden of Gethsamane, if the three apostles were sleeping a short distance away?

Or,likewise, how does anybody know how the devil tempted Jesus in the desert? and what was said?

Some people go right over the edge worrying about questions like these.

Some people assert that the Beatitudes in Matthew were condensed from several different sets of preaching by Jesus – nobody would remember all these statements if they were rattled off so quickly – they say.

Why did Jesus heal the blind man with spittle or mud (was it?) ? That seems to fall into the category of superstitious things that crop up in ancient Judaism. What does it signify? (recreation, recalling Adam being formed from dirt?)

At least Judaism tallies all the theories and hunches about scripture interpretation into sets of volumes called the Talmud. There’s a Jerusalem Talmud and a Babylonian Talmud. Then, there’s other, later interpretations referred to as the Midrash.

It seems it would be nice if early Christians had recorded their ideas in a similar way.

Maybe they did, and it’s in the Vatican archives someplace.
 
Crumpy said:
This is the sort of reason that I started studying the Bible on my own, at my own pace, and with the materials of my choosing.

the statement attributed to Jesus about taking up your cross and following Hiim has bothered me for a long time.

There’s may be three issues involved.
  1. maybe Jesus said it, like it says
  2. maybe Jesus said it at a different time, and it was inserted there
  3. did Jesus say it?
these are hard-edged questions from the historical-critical point of view.

There’s other moments in the gospels that raise questions, too, like, how does anybody know what Jesus was praying in the garden of Gethsamane, if the three apostles were sleeping a short distance away?

Or,likewise, how does anybody know how the devil tempted Jesus in the desert? and what was said?

Some people go right over the edge worrying about questions like these.

Some people assert that the Beatitudes in Matthew were condensed from several different sets of preaching by Jesus – nobody would remember all these statements if they were rattled off so quickly – they say.

Why did Jesus heal the blind man with spittle or mud (was it?) ? That seems to fall into the category of superstitious things that crop up in ancient Judaism. What does it signify? (recreation, recalling Adam being formed from dirt?)

At least Judaism tallies all the theories and hunches about scripture interpretation into sets of volumes called the Talmud. There’s a Jerusalem Talmud and a Babylonian Talmud. Then, there’s other, later interpretations referred to as the Midrash.

It seems it would be nice if early Christians had recorded their ideas in a similar way.

Maybe they did, and it’s in the Vatican archives someplace.
Click to expand...
Well you can start on line with New Advent. Look up the Early Church Fathers writings. As for the Gospel passage. The answer is simple if it is in the inspired word of God that we all accept where is the problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top