- Status
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
K
KSU
Guest
You will have to be a lot more specific about what you are asking.
K
KSU
Guest
newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm#VI
Historical genuineness
(4) Positive Evidence for the Historical Genuineness of the Gospel
The reasons urged against the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel are devoid of all conclusive force. On the other hand, its genuineness is vouched for by the whole character of the narrative. From the very beginning the events are portrayed with the precision of an eyewitness; the most minute subsidiary circumstances are mentioned; not the least suggestion can be found that the author had any other object in mind than the chronicling of the strict historical truth. A perusal of the passages describing the call of the first disciples (i, 35-51), the Marriage at Cana (ii, 1-11), the conversation with the Samaritan woman (iv, 3-42), the healing of the man born blind (ix, 1-41), the raising of Lazarus (xi, 1-47), is sufficient to convince one that such a chronicle must necessarily lead the readers into error, if the events which are described be otherwise than true in the historical sense.
To this must be added the express assertion made repeatedly by the Evangelist that he speaks the truth and claims for his words unqualified belief (19:35; 20:30 sq.; 21:24; 1 John 1:1-4). To reject these assurances is to label the Evangelist a worthless impostor, and to make of his Gospel an unsolvable historical and psychological enigma.
And finally, the verdict of the entire Christian past has certainly a distinct claim to consideration in this question, since the Fourth Gospel has always been unhesitatingly accepted as one of the chief and historically credible sources of our knowledge of the life of Jesus Christ. With entire justice, therefore, have the contrary views been condemned in clauses 16-18 of the Decree “Lamentabili” (3 July, 1907) and in the Decree of the Biblical Commission of 29 May, 1907.
Object and importance
The intention of the Evangelist in composing the Gospel is expressed in the words which we have already quoted: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (xx, 31). He wished also by his work to confirm the faith of the disciples in the Messianic character and the Divinity of Christ. To attain his object, he selected principally those discourses and colloquies of Jesus in which the self-revelation of the Redeemer laid clearest emphasis on the Divine Majesty of His Being. In this manner John wished to secure the faithful against the temptations of the false learning by means of which the heretics might prejudice the purity of their faith. Towards the narrative of the earlier Evangelists John’s attitude was that of one who sought to fill out the story of the words and works of the Saviour, while endeavouring to secure certain incidents from misinterpretation. His Gospel thus forms a glorious conclusion of the joyous message of the Eternal Word. For all time it remains for the Church the most sublime testimony of her faith in the Son of God, the radiant lamp of truth for her doctrine, the never-ceasing source of loving zeal in her devotion to her Master, Who loves her even to the end.
Historical genuineness
(4) Positive Evidence for the Historical Genuineness of the Gospel
The reasons urged against the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel are devoid of all conclusive force. On the other hand, its genuineness is vouched for by the whole character of the narrative. From the very beginning the events are portrayed with the precision of an eyewitness; the most minute subsidiary circumstances are mentioned; not the least suggestion can be found that the author had any other object in mind than the chronicling of the strict historical truth. A perusal of the passages describing the call of the first disciples (i, 35-51), the Marriage at Cana (ii, 1-11), the conversation with the Samaritan woman (iv, 3-42), the healing of the man born blind (ix, 1-41), the raising of Lazarus (xi, 1-47), is sufficient to convince one that such a chronicle must necessarily lead the readers into error, if the events which are described be otherwise than true in the historical sense.
To this must be added the express assertion made repeatedly by the Evangelist that he speaks the truth and claims for his words unqualified belief (19:35; 20:30 sq.; 21:24; 1 John 1:1-4). To reject these assurances is to label the Evangelist a worthless impostor, and to make of his Gospel an unsolvable historical and psychological enigma.
And finally, the verdict of the entire Christian past has certainly a distinct claim to consideration in this question, since the Fourth Gospel has always been unhesitatingly accepted as one of the chief and historically credible sources of our knowledge of the life of Jesus Christ. With entire justice, therefore, have the contrary views been condemned in clauses 16-18 of the Decree “Lamentabili” (3 July, 1907) and in the Decree of the Biblical Commission of 29 May, 1907.
Object and importance
The intention of the Evangelist in composing the Gospel is expressed in the words which we have already quoted: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (xx, 31). He wished also by his work to confirm the faith of the disciples in the Messianic character and the Divinity of Christ. To attain his object, he selected principally those discourses and colloquies of Jesus in which the self-revelation of the Redeemer laid clearest emphasis on the Divine Majesty of His Being. In this manner John wished to secure the faithful against the temptations of the false learning by means of which the heretics might prejudice the purity of their faith. Towards the narrative of the earlier Evangelists John’s attitude was that of one who sought to fill out the story of the words and works of the Saviour, while endeavouring to secure certain incidents from misinterpretation. His Gospel thus forms a glorious conclusion of the joyous message of the Eternal Word. For all time it remains for the Church the most sublime testimony of her faith in the Son of God, the radiant lamp of truth for her doctrine, the never-ceasing source of loving zeal in her devotion to her Master, Who loves her even to the end.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Thank you, PeterPlato. You understand my point perfectly. The bolded statement sums up my contention quite nicely.ProdigalSon,
I’ve read this entire thread and have to remark that you’ve made consistently valid points. I wouldn’t read Mr. O’Reilly’s book precisely because its defenders on this thread, for the most part, have not understood nor answered your points and, thereby, show a woeful lack of understanding the issues in question. Apparently - and I am waiting for the hornets to come out their nest - Mr. O’Reilly’s book could not have been as instructive concerning the historical record as has been touted by its readers, or they would have been better equipped to answer your points.
The real issue is whether it is worthwhile to read a presentation of the historical record, ostensibly intended to be an accurate historical record, when it is clearly a substandard (in terms of accuracy and depth) depiction of that record though, perhaps, to its credit, a readable and entertaining one.
Your point, I take it, is: Why bother reading a clearly specious work for historical accuracy when there are better (in the sense of well-argued, intensively-researched and scholarly) works available? It would seem wiser to gain a more accurate and complete grounding in the best available portrayal of history before allowing yourself (speaking generally) to be exposed to erroneous, though, perhaps, mildly enchanting, semi-accurate narratives.
If truth is important - and it is - why waste time being beguiled - even if the profits DO go to charity?
Just drawing some fire away from you - thought you needed a break
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
PeterPlato has very eloquently reiterated and expanded upon my objections, and it seems that still no one can offer a single source to refute these objections. A name and passage of a single historical document that supports each of the above claims and refutes my and PeterPlato’s objections is all that would be necessary to end this discussion.
Assumptions based on the general historical backdrop of the time are not sufficient to the task.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Mr. O’Reilly is clearly doing eisegesis (reading his own ideas into the record) but doing so in a compelling way.
The problem is that in order to understand the real issues at stake, a more balanced and complete perspective (exegesis) is required.
How would anyone know or even suspect when Mr. O’Reilly is reading his own ideas into the record without access to a number of more balanced and complete viewpoints from other historians?
That is why he should not be held up as a proper introduction to the historical record without the proviso and caution that his views are contentious, especially the parts that seem most compelling.
The fact that none of his reader advocates raised that point seems to imply that they are unaware of what a balanced view might look like and, most disturbingly, seem blithely unaware of which points are, in fact, the most contentious and why.
K
KSU
Guest
My post #100 explained what I considered inappropriate, and I have no intention of getting further entangled in irrelevancies.
This thread is about opinions of O’Reilly’s book, and Dei Verbum and Lamentabili should at least give pause to defenders of O’Reilly’s (alleged) flat-out contradiction of John 18:28 to 19:22. I say “alleged” because I have only the report of someone who has read the book, but someone whose honesty I trust.
I am not “hairsplitting” or “nit-picking” when I defend Church teaching against back door implications that John just made up the whole Jesus-Pilate narrative, and that Pilate really had Christ crucified because he believed the lies the Jews told him about Christ.
K
KSU
Guest
You insist that I explain to you why a completely unwarranted implication of antisemitism against those of us who side with the teaching in Dei Verbum and Lamentabili (rather than with the assertion in O’Reilly’s book concerning the Pilate-Jesus narrative in John’s Gospel) is inappropriate. You say you don’t know why it’s inappropriate.
Well, my friend, you simply are going to have to suffer through life with that unexplained mystery gnawing at you. Or, you can just get serious.
I am not going to respond again.
K
KSU
Guest
It’s a Catholic thing–complete faith in Church teaching about the Gospels regarding the issue under debate here. I almost want to boast about it, but, like St. Paul: “I am not going to, in case anyone should begin to think I am better than he can actually see and hear me to be.” 2 Corinthians 12:6
I am a weak and sinful man, my friend, and my only strength is my faith.
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I think in the interest of all of us remaining friends–(and hey, that would be my hope as our paths may cross on other threads, right?)–that maybe we should all just agree to disagree! I read and enjoyed O’Reilly’s book as I said. I have also recommended it to others and even bought copies for future Christmas gifts to family members. There is nothing in the book that I found to be heresy.- Interestingly to me,my local priest/pastor and I had a moment to speak after Mass last weekend and I discovered that HE had read the book too! I brought up all the hoop-la about it and he assured me that he found nothing heretical about it either! He even said that he thought it might be a good “conversation starter” between Catholics and some other faiths–including Jews and some protestant sects like JW’s. I’m not so sure I’d personally try that–as big of a “broo-ha” as just mentioning the book caused here even among some who had never actually read it–I think I might be asking for trouble! LOL! Father’s remark was that people are often more willing to discuss a secular book than outright religion–which he thinks may be a good idea. Anyway, what I’d say is that just bcause I read and liked the book–or even because my pastor read and liked it, that it’s perfectly reasonable to accept that other brothers and sisters may not–or just may not even care to bother reading it at all! It’s not worth squabbling over. It’s just a book after all–and each of us only has a certain amount of time for recreational reading of any type and must pick and choose. If some of you find the book offensive, for me anyway, I accept how you feel and am not going to try to convince you otherwise—especially since at least up until now, Mr. O’Reilly hasn’t offered me one cent to promote his book! Now maybe if I get an offer from O’Reilly I’ll reconsider! LOL!
K
KSU
Guest
Thanks, Starrsmother. It never occurred otherwise to me, or probably anyone else on my “side.” We must never stop being friends.I think in the interest of all of us remaining friends–(and hey, that would be my hope as our paths may cross on other threads, right?)–that maybe we should all just agree to disagree! I read and enjoyed O’Reilly’s book as I said. I have also recommended it to others and even bought copies for future Christmas gifts to family members. There is nothing in the book that I found to be heresy.- Interestingly to me,my local priest/pastor and I had a moment to speak after Mass last weekend and I discovered that HE had read the book too! I brought up all the hoop-la about it and he assured me that he found nothing heretical about it either! He even said that he thought it might be a good “conversation starter” between Catholics and some other faiths–including Jews and some protestant sects like JW’s. I’m not so sure I’d personally try that–as big of a “broo-ha” as just mentioning the book caused here even among some who had never actually read it–I think I might be asking for trouble! LOL! Father’s remark was that people are often more willing to discuss a secular book than outright religion–which he thinks may be a good idea. Anyway, what I’d say is that just bcause I read and liked the book–or even because my pastor read and liked it, that it’s perfectly reasonable to accept that other brothers and sisters may not–or just may not even care to bother reading it at all! It’s not worth squabbling over. It’s just a book after all–and each of us only has a certain amount of time for recreational reading of any type and must pick and choose. If some of you find the book offensive, for me anyway, I accept how you feel and am not going to try to convince you otherwise—especially since at least up until now, Mr. O’Reilly hasn’t offered me one cent to promote his book! Now maybe if I get an offer from O’Reilly I’ll reconsider! LOL!
I, too, had a short chat with my pastor about this thread. He rolled his eyes and said, “We are people of the Gospels, not of popular writers.” As he walked away to prepare for Mass, he looked back at me in semi-astonishment and asked, “You mean BILL O’Reilly?” When I replied, “yes, that O’Reilly,” he just smiled.
- Status