Nativity narratives

[Little_Les]

You don’t want answers, You just want a stupid argument. I hope all this diatribe makes you feel better about yourself.

RESPONSE:

I just want to verify the facts. I consider any earnest and documented argument contrary to what I present.

Otherwise, I must conclude my facts are correct…

 

[Della]

RESPONSE:

Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census Quirinius directed.

It is known that Herod died in 4 B.C., and that the census was conducted by Quirinius when Judea came under the control of the governor of Syria in 6 A.D. Check Josephus and other historians of this period.

We don’t need a Church “definition” to know the prominant dates of history.

I would think it obvious that the census conducted by Quirinius is not the one Luke was referring to. According to Luke 2:1:

“In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.”

There’s no mention of a Quirinius in Luke’s account.

 

[scottm]

I didn’t say they got the story wrong, I said they disagreed on details. Angels or no angels? Shepherds or no shepherds? Manger or no manger? If there was a census requiring them to travel to Bethlehem, don’t you think Matthew might have mentioned it as well? If three kings from the East came to pay homage, shouldn’t Luke have known about them?

Did one of them say, “There were no angels.” ??
Did one of them say, “There were no shepherds.” ??
Likewise the manger.
I acknowledge that I have not read that specific part of the Bible for awhile, but I don’t recall these statements being in there.

Matthew need not write every detail of which he knows. Neither does Luke have to write every detail of which he knows. It’s a truism, a pure 100% absolute verifiable undeniable truth, that every single writer on the planet who ever lived and ever wrote anything at all, without exception, did NOT write every detail of which he knew about the event he wrote about.

To say that, “Bob was wrong because Bob didn’t include this here detail,” is to deny real-world reality. Try this: the reporters who wrote the articles in todays newspaper did not tell us what color the sky was where the event happened. They didn’t tell us what color shoes anybody was wearing, or what color purses the ladies carried. They didn’t tell us the license plate of the 2353 cars that drove past the scene. They didn’t tell us this, that, and the other. They easily left out a million details all of which they observed.

That’s the truth of how writing occurs. Neither Matthew nor Luke had to tell us everything. Nobody ever, ever, ever writes everything.

But I think you can discern Truth – that Jesus is the Word made flesh – without worrying about the details.

But you didn’t answer how you know that Jesus was born! I am unaware of anyone except Matthew and Luke writing about his birth, and twice now you said they got it wrong.

 

[scottm]

How do you know that the people that love you actually love you. I’m sure you would say that you know that they do. Faith is the same way. You don’t have to be there to know otherwise you could say that Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist.

You could try to say that Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist, but we have a huge number of independent and complementary writings. We even have his picture. Discrete details of his life are sketchy, sure, but at least his existence and his presidency are beyond question in the face of all that evidence.

As for Jesus’ birth, I’m aware of only two sources: the two gospels. If those are wrong then we don’t have a real Jesus. We have a made-up Jesus. We’re doomed.

 

[pete_29]

You could try to say that Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist, but we have a huge number of independent and complementary writings. We even have his picture. Discrete details of his life are sketchy, sure, but at least his existence and his presidency are beyond question in the face of all that evidence.

As for Jesus’ birth, I’m aware of only two sources: the two gospels. If those are wrong then we don’t have a real Jesus. We have a made-up Jesus. We’re doomed.

I would say that the two Gospels are at least as provable as any of the writings about Lincoln. Anyway, God and Jesus aren’t ment to be proved, that’s why it’s called Faith. If God and Jesus were provable, then everyone would believe and free will would be pointless.

 

[Little_Les]

I would think it obvious that the census conducted by Quirinius is not the one Luke was referring to. According to Luke 2:1:

“In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.”

There’s no mention of a Quirinius in Luke’s account.

RESPONSE:

Of course there is!

You are talking about two different censuses. One that never happened in 6 A.D. (another error by Luke), and one that did.

Luke 2 1-3
" In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus (2) that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town." (NAB)

Footnote #2
“Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful.”

 

[patg]

Is a Catholic to regard Matthew’s and Luke’s nativity narratives as historical accounts of actual events, or as an allegory or story about the legendary events surrounding Jesus’ birth?

It’s interesting to note that when we read of the origins of Alexander the Great or the Caesars or the Pharoahs, we casually pass over, with a knowing smile, the stories of divine origins, celestial events that accompanied their births, geologic upheavels, omens and portents because we know these were fiction meant to dramatize the importance of these individuals. We know that these “infancy narratives” were common then and mostly unused in our enlightened time. That people then and now recognize them as fiction even though the fiction was teaching something very important. Then we read nearly identical stories written during the same era by similar Greek oriented writers and the literary form screams “Infancy Narrative”. However, the name “Jesus” is in there so we mysteriously forget everything we know and say that this must be literal history! And if that’s not bad enough, we also ignore the impossible to reconcile date conflicts, the significant “historical” events for which there is no record, and the references to Jewish rituals which did not exist.

An infancy narrative is a kind of story that we find in scripture, both in the old and new testaments, as well as in the culture in which our biblical ancestors lived, but not in our own culture. Because the literary form *infancy narrative *is unfamiliar to us we might inadvertently misunderstand what we are reading. As is true of every story in the bible, we must correctly understand the literary form we are reading in order to understand what the author intends to say.

The author of an infancy narrative is not responding to the question “How can I tell the story of this person’s birth exactly as it occurred?” but to the question “How can I tell this story so that the reader understands just how great this person became?” An infancy narrative is not written from a point of view contemporary with its subject’s birth; it is written in hindsight in the light of subsequent events to teach what came to be known about the person over time. The birth narratives of Jesus were written after the resurrection, after the disciples had come to understand Jesus’ true identity.

Once we understand the point of view of the author of an infancy narrative, we can’t help but ask, “Are infancy narratives historically accurate?” The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke have a historical core. However, the author is not trying to describe events exactly as they occurred, as would a historian. Rather, the author is trying to describe events so that the listeners, or readers, understand the significance of events within the context of their lives.

 

[Little_Les]

I would say that the two Gospels are at least as provable as any of the writings about Lincoln. Anyway, God and Jesus aren’t ment to be proved, that’s why it’s called Faith. If God and Jesus were provable, then everyone would believe and free will would be pointless.

RESPONSE:

No. There are far more and far more current writings about Lincoln. There are only two vastly contradictory birth accounts of Jesus. We can be certain that he was born. Beyond that the facts get blurry.

Faith shouldn’t be confused with gullibility (ie, believe not supported by or contrary to the evidence).

 

[Little_Les]

patg;2917569>>:

It’s interesting to note that when we read of the origins of Alexander the Great or the Caesars or the Pharoahs, we casually pass over, with a knowing smile, the stories of divine origins, celestial events that accompanied their births, geologic upheavels, omens and portents because we know these were fiction meant to dramatize the importance of these individuals. We know that these “infancy narratives” were common then and mostly unused in our enlightened time. That people then and now recognize them as fiction even though the fiction was teaching something very important. Then we read nearly identical stories written during the same era by similar Greek oriented writers and the literary form screams “Infancy Narrative”. However, the name “Jesus” is in there so we mysteriously forget everything we know and say that this must be literal history! And if that’s not bad enough, we also ignore the impossible to reconcile date conflicts, the significant “historical” events for which there is no record, and the references to Jewish rituals which did not exist.<<

RESPONSE:

But the distincion is that the nativity narratives are claimed to be “inspired” and have God as their author. Do they?

An infancy narrative is a kind of story that we find in scripture, both in the old and new testaments, as well as in the culture in which our biblical ancestors lived, but not in our own culture. Because the literary form *infancy narrative *is unfamiliar to us we might inadvertently misunderstand what we are reading. As is true of every story in the bible, we must correctly understand the literary form we are reading in order to understand what the author intends to say.<<

RESPONSE:

Are you prepared to admit that much of “inspired” scripture is simply a story?

The author of an infancy narrative is not responding to the question “How can I tell the story of this person’s birth exactly as it occurred?” but to the question “How can I tell this story so that the reader understands just how great this person became?” An infancy narrative is not written from a point of view contemporary with its subject’s birth; it is written in hindsight in the light of subsequent events to teach what came to be known about the person over time. The birth narratives of Jesus were written after the resurrection, after the disciples had come to understand Jesus’ true identity.<<

Are you sayiing its OK if a belief system is built on what, in the final analysis, is only fiction?

Once we understand the point of view of the author of an infancy narrative, we can’t help but ask, “Are infancy narratives historically accurate?” The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke have a historical core. However, the author is not trying to describe events exactly as they occurred, as would a historian. Rather, the author is trying to describe events so that the listeners, or readers, understand the significance of events within the context of their lives.

<<

RESPONSE:

In other words, the writer is creating a fiction and pretending that it all realy happened in order to convince the reader to adopt a particular belief system?

 

[buffalo]

<<

RESPONSE:

In other words, the writer is creating a fiction and pretending that it all realy happened in order to convince the reader to adopt a particular belief system?

Spend the time reading this and your questions will be answered.

 

[Little_Les]

Spend the time reading this and your questions will be answered.

RESPONSE:

Not really. The “party line” will be restated for those who can’t or won’t do research on their own.

If you want to examine “this,” please present the sections you want to debate.

 

[Little_Les]

Patg posted:

An infancy narrative is a kind of story that we find in scripture, both in the old and new testaments, as well as in the culture in which our biblical ancestors lived, but not in our own culture. Because the literary form infancy narrative is unfamiliar to us we might inadvertently misunderstand what we are reading. As is true of every story in the bible, we must correctly understand the literary form we are reading in order to understand what the author intends to say.<<

RESPONSE:

Does this mean we can discount the first four “prophecy fulfillments” (starting with the virginal conception of Jesus) presented by Matthew chapaters 1-3 as just a "literary form " and not consider them actual events?

 

[buffalo]

RESPONSE:

Not really. The “party line” will be restated for those who can’t or won’t do research on their own.

If you want to examine “this,” please present the sections you want to debate.

Oh well.

 

[Little_Les]

buffalo Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Les
RESPONSE:

"Not really. The “party line” will be restated for those who can’t or won’t do research on their own.

If you want to examine “this,” please present the sections you want to debate."

Oh well.

RESPONSE:

Yes. Simply refering someone to a website is avoidant behavior and indicates that one have no argument of one’s own to present.

It’s an intellectual copout.

 

[davidv]

It’s an intellectual copout.

How so? You started this thread. The linked information responds to your question.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Les
R

Yes. Simply refering someone to a website is avoidant behavior and indicates that one have no argument of one’s own to present.

It’s an intellectual copout.

HeHeHe!!!

I just cut to the chase. Avoidance? Hardly. You wanted answers, I pointed you to a source with extensive footnotes and research to back up my position. If you are interested you will read it thoroughly. If not, OH Well.

If you do choose to read it come back with questions or refutations.

 

[scottm]

I would say that the two Gospels are at least as provable as any of the writings about Lincoln. Anyway, God and Jesus aren’t ment to be proved, that’s why it’s called Faith. If God and Jesus were provable, then everyone would believe and free will would be pointless.

This is a dangerous road to walk. I agree that Jesus is provable, but, let’s lay that aside. Hypothetically, if he’s not provable, then God did not come down from heaven and interact with humans in real time and real space on this real planet.

Full stop. End of sentence. End of discussion. We’re done. Christianity the religion is a bogus fiction. We’re living a fairy tale.

It’s nice that you have faith, but so do the Mormons. If your faith in a person we don’t know actually was born and lived (remember the hypothetical assumption) is valid, then so is the faith of the Mormons in their “Book of Mormon.” Your faith in an unprovable person is not different in kind than their faith in their unprovable stories in the “Book of Mormon.” Faith is faith is faith. Unprovable is unprovable is unprovable. The conclusion is obvious: we must stop saying that Mormons are heretical.

Ditto the Hindus. They have fabulous faith in their deities. Really good faith. And they have great stories too. If we can’t show that our faith is different in kind to their faith, then we must stop saying that their beliefs are wrong.

Ditto the Moslems. They have a faith about Jesus too. Once we say that the gospel writers got the true story wrong, and once we say that we can’t prove our desired version of the story, then we’ve walked right into the Moslem camp. The Moslems have always acknowledged the existence of Jesus but said that the version of events portrayed in the Bible stories is inaccurate. Well, hello, we now owe the Moslems an apology. And we have to stop speaking against the Moslem religion!

And on and on. There are a whole lot of religions out there with excellent people of deep, deep faith who disagree with us about Jesus. Lots of religions. Lots of deeply faithful people in those religions. The moment we say that we cannot demonstrate the historical reality of our beliefs, we have lost our ownership of truth. We don’t own truth anymore. It belongs to someone else, someone of a different religion who teaches different things about Jesus. As a matter of intellectual and moral honesty we must immediately stop saying that the other religions must conform to our beliefs.

Any other reaction is hypocritical and disingenuous. There, I said it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

But neither Matthew nor Luke give us any dates for Jesus’ birth only the circumstances surrounding it. Where are you getting these dates? And the Church has never defined the year, either. I have to conclude that one of your dates is probably inaccurate, if not both.

There are no dates in the bible to be sure. But there are plenty of independent sources for the dating of herod’s death and the census. So those dates are quite firm.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

RESPONSE:

I’m afraid that what you are implying is contrary to Church teaching:

Providentissimus:
“Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write – He was so present to them – that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture.”

"Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. “Therefore,” says St. Augustine, “since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated.”[And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: “Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things – we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution.”

Do you disagree?

We often get into difficulty in trying to quote from Church documents. They must often be read in the dreaded word context. It is the church’s teaching that the bible is inerrent as to matters of faith and salvation. It states that it is not meant to be taken as literally true on matters of history, science, etc. It recognizes that the writers of all the bible were human beings with individual foibles, and life experiences, living in particular times. The are always considered to have been honest in their attempt to portray the world as they saw it, but not necessarily always correct.
[/quote]

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You could try to say that Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist, but we have a huge number of independent and complementary writings. We even have his picture. Discrete details of his life are sketchy, sure, but at least his existence and his presidency are beyond question in the face of all that evidence.

As for Jesus’ birth, I’m aware of only two sources: the two gospels. If those are wrong then we don’t have a real Jesus. We have a made-up Jesus. We’re doomed.

Well there are independent sources for Jesus having lived so I would assume that meant he was born. And as usual, given your fundamentalist desires, you wish to throw out the entire bible because of some possible disagreement between Luke and Matthew or that some dating may be incorrect? You wanted to throw out the bible because of Evolution too…Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not particularly smart thinking.