C
Cristiano
Guest
Yes I got a brain freeze while I was typing.
- Status
D
deb1
Guest
I am a bit fuzzy on this so forgive me if I am wrong. Wasnāt Andrew, the brother of Peter, once a disciple of John the Baptist.
My opinion is whoever was physically close to Jesus when he came out of the water heard the voice. So, John and Jesus both would have heard this and if Andrew was assisting John he would have heard this also.
John had his own disciples too, so they might have been very close to him when he baptized Jesus.
My opinion is whoever was physically close to Jesus when he came out of the water heard the voice. So, John and Jesus both would have heard this and if Andrew was assisting John he would have heard this also.
John had his own disciples too, so they might have been very close to him when he baptized Jesus.
N
Nita
Guest
I think both āYou,ā and āThis isā¦ā are correct.
The difference is in the ears of the one hearing (like at Pentecost in Acts 2:6).
Jesus heard āYou areā¦ā
John the Baptist (and perhaps others) heard āThis isā¦ā
Nita
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Oh i agree that both are perfectly fine. I would not however combine the two. MML all use this story. Iām not sure you should combine across gospels. like 1+1+1 =/ 3 ā¦but still 1ā¦For pastoral means one would of course do just this, to get as much impact from the story as possible. Exegetically i donāt think you can combine the stories to get a fuller one.
N
Nita
Guest
Iām not grasping what youāre saying.
They are the same story, just related from two perspectives (Jesusā perspective and Johnās perspective). So, donāt know what you mean when you speak of combining across gospels. Why on earth wouldnāt one combine/synthesize the various gospel records of the same event?
Also, not sure what you mean by āpastoralā. My understanding is that the whole purpose of the Scriptures is pastoral (Jesus/God shepherding us); therefore that should be a primary consideration in any exegesis of Scripture.
Nita
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Good post 
If the accounts in the gospels are meant to be identical, either the Spirit of God or the evangelists or both were downright incompetent. If OTOH they were written for different audiences, different churches & different needs, they donāt need to be identical; they can be different accounts of the same event, their meaning being interpreted to meet the needs of the hearers - what Jewish Christtians might need to hear, would not necessarily be the same as what converted Greeks would need. In which case, the different accounts can be complementary, without being squashed into a uniformity that distorts all of them & lets none of them get its message across.As to the Baptism - I think there is far more here than appears on the surface.
I believe that the voice either was interior, a bit like a locution perhaps; or else, that it was audible, but as thunder, & not as a voice - except to Jesus. In either case, I think the passage is trying to express what is impossible to express, & doing so by telling it in the form of a story. God after all is not a reality of the same order as we are - we have only human words to speak of Divine actions.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Hopefully you read Michaels response and that clarified it for you. I donāt believe that it is correct to add the three stories together for the combined āinformationā. Such is fine from a pastoral theological point of view. Homiletic if you will, but to the student of the Gospels it would be incorrect I believe. Each writer was as Michael suggested writing for a different audience and with somewhat different reasons. Since it appears that the 3 had the same source, the differences between them are more likely points that were added to reflect the needs of the present community. Thus they cannot be added together to form a whole. the Whole is actually the smaller part wherein they are in agreement. Hopefully this is clearer.
L
Lev23
Guest
Take into consideration 2 Peter 1:16-18-
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, āThis is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.ā We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But Peter is talking of the scene at the Mount of the Transfiguration, not the Baptism. This does not prove the other.
M
MariaG
Guest
I did not see any citations of Catholic Scholars in that post, maybe a previous one? Or simply the opinion of a person?
At New Advent, they state that the story of the three wise men are regarded as fact. Red and bold added by me
N
Nita
Guest
Hi SpiritMeadow
I understand Michaelās response and agree with the first paragraph (altho not necessarily the third - eg possibility of thunder).
As to whether the stories had the same source, we donāt know. Perhaps both Our Lord and St. John spoke of the event to the apostles; perhaps more than one heard speaking but not necessarily the same thing, etc.
You say:
.This statement I do not agree with.
IMO that sort of methodology is how some end up with crediting only a very few of Our Lordās statements in the gospels as actually having been spoken by Him, and only a few events as actually occurring.
I think it is only by incorporating all that Scripture has to say about an event (adding them together, if you will) that one can form a truer picture of the āWholeā.
Nita
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
That isnāt a methodology, but the end conclusion of several methodologies. Anyone of course is free to read scripture as they choose, as our protestant friends tell us constantly. In any event you are most correct that it is not motivated by any desire to uphold scripture. That would be very dishonest. Scholars do as best they can we hope in recognizing their own biases and removing them as best as possible from consideration and simply following the evidence to its conclusion whatever that might be. It is certainly not apologetic in nature. Many prefer only apologetic commentaries, others prefer the kind of exploration used in any other discipline.
N
Nita
Guest
???
If comparing parallel Scripture passages. for the purpose of locating areas of agreement as the means of determining which portions are to be considered factual, isnāt a āmethod/methodologyā of Scriptural exegesis, then what is it?
Problem could be our understanding of terms. What is your definition of āmethodologyā?
Nita
N
NotWorthy
Guest
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Thatās problematic though - for one thing, the scholarship of the article is not in a position to take account of anything in the last ninety years or so: itās quite difficult for an article from 1913 to take account of magisterial teaching on the Bible from 1943 or 1968 or 1964 or 1993 as well.
And the reasoning here is fallacious:- Catholics insist that** it is a narrative of fact**, supporting their interpretation with the evidence of all manuscripts and versions, and patristic citations.
There are quite a few copies of āThe Lord of the Ringsā - many hundreds of millions, in different languages: but that is no sort of evidence whatever that the narrative is ānarrative of factā; because it is illegitimate to reason from the popularity of a narrative, to any conclusions about its relation to reality. These are entirely different types of question: one is qualitative, the other is quantitative. No quantity of evidence for a narrative of fiction, can make it in a narrative of fact - if ther were no evidence whatever for a fact, that fact would be unaffected.
N
Nita
Guest
Thatās only one of the definitions. Here are a few more:
Definitions of Methodology on the Web:
The way in which information is found or something is done. The methodology includes the methods, procedures, and techniques used to collect and ā¦
www.lillytrials.com/docs/terminology.html
A system of principles, practices, and procedures applied to a specific branch of knowledge.
www.dmreview.com/rg/resources/glossary.cfm
the precise design of a study, including the methods used
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Sometimes my attempts at humor are too subtle? Or too obvious?
N
Nita
Guest
And a lot of the times Iām really dense!!!Sometimes my attempts at humor are too subtle? Or too obvious?
Nita
M
MariaG
Guest
But my point was the the op was saying that āCatholic scholarsā sayā¦Thatās problematic though - for one thing, the scholarship of the article is not in a position to take account of anything in the last ninety years or so: itās quite difficult for an article from 1913 to take account of magisterial teaching on the Bible from 1943 or 1968 or 1964 or 1993 as well.
And the reasoning here is fallacious:
The evidence of the versions, and of patristic citations, is or can be evidence that a thing was believed; but not that that thing was true. Truth is not a quantity - itās a quality. (As is falsity.) The Fathers were not present at the Incarnation, just as later generations than they were not. Whatever their value, it is not that of eye-witnesses - they were as dependent on what is sometimes no more than gossip & interpretation & rumour as we are; mere chronological closeness to the Apostles does not automatically make them reliable. Which is why one function of patristic scholarship is to assess the trustworthiness of what they say. Papias is earlier than Eusebius of Caesarea - it does not follow that he is therefore more reliable in all things. What the Fathers say on this that has to be taken case by case, not simply swallowed whole.
- Catholics insist that** it is a narrative of fact**, supporting their interpretation with the evidence of all manuscripts and versions, and patristic citations.
There are quite a few copies of āThe Lord of the Ringsā - many hundreds of millions, in different languages: but that is no sort of evidence whatever that the narrative is ānarrative of factā; because it is illegitimate to reason from the popularity of a narrative, to any conclusions about its relation to reality. These are entirely different types of question: one is qualitative, the other is quantitative. No quantity of evidence for a narrative of fiction, can make it in a narrative of fact - if ther were no evidence whatever for a fact, that fact would be unaffected.
But what he quoted was a personal opinion of a fellow Catholic on these boards with no backup of that opinion whatsoever. If one is going to make that claim that āCatholic scholarsā say that the 3 wise men are a myth like this is commonly accepted as a fact, then I would like to see the source that says this. While the people here may be more knowledgable than some, few could be called āCatholic scholarsā which was the thrust of my post.
God Bless,
Maria
M
MariaG
Guest
In fact, although I really had not thought about the issue, and donāt care whether it is a myth or not, it was the first time I had heard this āfactā.
And on a quick search of the Catechism, the catechism seems to place the magi in the same category as actual events and people and not as a myth.
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=magi
But again, IF āCatholic scholarsā say it is a myth, I would be interested in seeing them. What the op referred to a such, was only the opinion of one person.
God bless,
Maria
And on a quick search of the Catechism, the catechism seems to place the magi in the same category as actual events and people and not as a myth.
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=magi
But again, IF āCatholic scholarsā say it is a myth, I would be interested in seeing them. What the op referred to a such, was only the opinion of one person.
God bless,
Maria
- Status