Nativity narratives

[Little_Les]

TMC posted that,

I’m not sure where you are going, unless you are laying a very long foundation to refute infallibility. Is that your point? Don’t get me wrong, I’m enjoying the exchange, but your position is not perfectly clear.<<

RESPONSE:

I thought I’d already done that.

Oh well, lets look at other examples.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council:
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” ( N.B. Meets Vatican I’s criteria for an infallible papal ex cathedra definition).

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino:
“It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels…”

But now:

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 3, SubSection 3, Heading 4

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

RESPONSE:

Two of the major prophecies of the Messiah were that he would “sit on the throne of David” and would return the rule to Israel. Also that his coming would be preceeded by the return of Elijah.

Did Jesus fulfill these?

The gospels interpret John the Baptist as fulfilling the role of Elijah, so I would say, yes, that prophecy was fulfilled.

Sitting on the throne of David: We believe Christ is sitting on his throne in heaven, and his Kingdom is on earth in a more subtle way, but will be fulfilled completely at the second coming. So it’s only partially fulfilled. But we believe it will be literally fulfilled at the second coming.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Did the Apostolic Fathers refer to the stories of Jesus’ birth as infancy narratives which shouldn’t be taken literally?

Since they were from that culture, where everyone knew what an infancy narrative was, it must have been really clear to them, and may have mentioned it in their writings.

 

[Little_Les]

And the fourth of Matthew’s claimed fulfilled"prophecies" in his Nativity Narrative:

Matt 2:23
"He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.” (NAB)

But NAB footnote #12 to the above:

“The town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and no such prophecy can be found there.”

Yet another error is a supposedly divinely inspired writing.

 

[Axion]

Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII 1943:
“…not merely because [the books of the canon] contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy spirit, they have God for their author…When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, [when these Catholic writers] ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals…Leo XIII…justly and rightly condemned these errors… Finally, it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred’… For as the substantial Word of God [Jesus Christ] became like to men in all things, ‘except sin,’ so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Did an angel really appear to Mary for the annunciation, or is that part of the non-literal writing of the time as well?

Was Jesus really born? Maybe he actually descended from heaven as a full-grown adult. That would make more sense in a way.

 

[Little_Les]

Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII 1943:
“…not merely because [the books of the canon] contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy spirit, they have God for their author…When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, [when these Catholic writers] ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals…Leo XIII…justly and rightly condemned these errors… Finally, it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred’… For as the substantial Word of God [Jesus Christ] became like to men in all things, ‘except sin,’ so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.”

RESPONSE:

So since error is evidenced in scripture, then according to the Church, it cannot be considered to be divinely inspired. Q.E.D.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

How can it be that there have been 9 pages of discussions and no one has linked to real answers about the apparent dating discrepancy that was brought up?

Instead, people resort to throwing up their hands and declaring that the documents are not meant to be history. (Here, I am not taking a position on whether every single item in the infancy narratives are meant to be historical, but there is no reason to wave the white flag in this case)

Here are two links which describe possible resolutions to the Herod/Quirinius problem:

christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

As for the reference to I Thessalonians 4:15, the passage could be interpreted as being written with an assumption that the second coming would be in his lifetime. However, he did not ASSERT this in the text.

There are similar solutions to all of the so-called contradictions in the Bible.

 

[timmo]

This is the craziest thread I’ve seen!!
The posters who seem to me to be in line with the Catholic statement on innerancy are:
Pete Holter (non-Catholic at the moment)
Axion ??
Little Les (Catholic)

It seems very clear that The Catholic Church teaches that Luke’s Nativity Narrative is true.
If this is so it would appear that Little Les and most others are dissenters! And, the only supporters of Catholic teaching are Pete and Axion.
I’m a Catholic and I believe without reservation that the Narrative is TRUE.

This apparent problem with Luke’s narrative is an old chestnut. Atheists use it a lot.

Peter Holter posted:

truth cannot contradict truth,<<
I say absolutely TRUE:thumbsup:

Little Les says :
But it clearly does. So both can’t be “true” or “inspired.”
I say logically this is rubbish.

Earlier post #9
Contradictory accounts can’t both claim inspiration. One must be in error.

For example, King Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. When Judea came under his control, Quirinius conducted as census (6 A.D.)

Jesus could not have been born both before 4 B.C. and after 6 A.D. Either Matthew or Luke are in error.

It is false to conclude “Either Matthew or Luke are in error.”
The error could (and for Catholics does) lie somewhere else.
One possibility is enough to display the fallacy of the logic eg:

• the original Luke was in Aramaic and suffered in translation
• Quirinius was in control or joint control on two different occasions
• census spanned several years or was interrupted
• maybe historical records are in error

Little Les, a Catholic he says, who appears very well versed on Catholic teaching on innerancy, denies it! - and with patently illogical arguments.

I just saw Pillar of Truth’s post as i was posting this- so not included. also if anybody is offended or feels misrepresented - i apologise sincerely.
i’m no expert but this annoys the hell out of me - so again apologies in advance
tim

 

[Little_Les]

How can it be that there have been 9 pages of discussions and no one has linked to real answers about the apparent dating discrepancy that was brought up?

Instead, people resort to throwing up their hands and declaring that the documents are not meant to be history. (Here, I am not taking a position on whether every single item in the infancy narratives are meant to be historical, but there is no reason to wave the white flag in this case)

Here are two links which describe possible resolutions to the Herod/Quirinius problem:

christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

As for the reference to I Thessalonians 4:15, the passage could be interpreted as being written with an assumption that the second coming would be in his lifetime. However, he did not ASSERT this in the text.

There are similar solutions to all of the so-called contradictions in the Bible.

 

[Little_Les]

QUOTE=Pillar_of_truth;2935189]>>How can it be that there have been 9 pages of discussions and no one has linked to real answers about the apparent dating discrepancy that was brought up?

Instead, people resort to throwing up their hands and declaring that the documents are not meant to be history. (Here, I am not taking a position on whether every single item in the infancy narratives are meant to be historical, but there is no reason to wave the white flag in this case)

Here are two links which describe possible resolutions to the Herod/Quirinius problem:

christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp<<

RESPONSE:

If given a URL as a response, I find it prudent not to read it. If the poster has to resort to using one, I can conclude that he either doesn’t understad or isn’t convinced by the URL.

As for the reference to I Thessalonians 4:15, the passage could be interpreted as being written with an assumption that the second coming would be in his lifetime. However, he did not ASSERT this in the text.<<

RESPONSE:

Yes he did. He made a positive statement which he claimed was told to him by the Lord.

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep.”

But Paul was in error.

There are similar solutions to all of the so-called contradictions in the Bible.<<

RESPONSE:

Are they all as weak as the ones you’ve presented?

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

RESPONSE:

If given a URL as a response, I find it prudent not to read it. If the poster has to resort to using one, I can conclude that he either doesn’t understad or isn’t convinced by the URL.

That’s ridiculous. I had thought you were an honest inquirer, or at least given you the benefit of the doubt since the responses presented to you were less than stellar. However, now I see that you are a charlatan. You expect me to spend my precious time typing in the substance of the argument when I can link to it within 5 seconds!?!? You, sir, have a low opinion of the value of my time. If you want to find answers, read the links. If you are just here to prey on intellectually weak Christians, then don’t. Your choice.

Yes he did. He made a positive statement which he claimed was told to him by the Lord.

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep.”

But Paul was in error.

There are similar solutions to all of the so-called contradictions in the Bible

“We” could have just been a poetic way of putting it, or even an excerpt from a hymn. Otherwise, you are claimed that Paul believed he had had a revelation from God that HE SPECIFICALLY would be alive at the coming of the Lord. He certainly didn’t seem to think this in some other letters - for one example see 2 Timothy 4:6.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you for the links, I was starting to have a real crisis of faith until I read that.

Here’s my favorite part:

"Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn’t governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died. Either Luke is wrong on his dating of Jesus’ birth or Matthew made up the story of Herod the Great and the killing of the infants. Is this an accurate objection?

The Governorship of Quirinius
In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius’ governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn’t use the official political title of “Governor” (“legatus”), but the broader term “hegemon” which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus."

That’s ridiculous. I had thought you were an honest inquirer, or at least given you the benefit of the doubt since the responses presented to you were less than stellar. However, now I see that you are a charlatan. You expect me to spend my precious time typing in the substance of the argument when I can link to it within 5 seconds!?!? You, sir, have a low opinion of the value of my time. If you want to find answers, read the links. If you are just here to prey on intellectually weak Christians, then don’t. Your choice.

“We” could have just been a poetic way of putting it, or even an excerpt from a hymn. Otherwise, you are claimed that Paul believed he had had a revelation from God that HE SPECIFICALLY would be alive at the coming of the Lord. He certainly didn’t seem to think this in some other letters - for one example see 2 Timothy 4:6.

 

[Little_Les]

Today, 4:05 pm
Pillar_of_truth
Junior Member Join Date: July 12, 2005
Posts: 4

Re: Nativity narratives

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Les
RESPONSE:

"If given a URL as a response, I find it prudent not to read it. If the poster has to resort to using one, I can conclude that he either doesn’t understad or isn’t convinced by the URL. "

“That’s ridiculous. I had thought you were an honest inquirer, or at least given you the benefit of the doubt since the responses presented to you were less than stellar. However, now I see that you are a charlatan. You expect me to spend my precious time typing in the substance of the argument when I can link to it within 5 seconds!?!? You, sir, have a low opinion of the value of my time. If you want to find answers, read the links. If you are just here to prey on intellectually weak Christians, then don’t. Your choice.”

RESPONSE:

If I give you the URL of the Library of Congress and claim that it contains proof that I am right , will you accept that as proof of any assertion I make? Do you really expect a reader to accept that kind of proof?

Ridiculous. So if you have an assertion to make and defend, please make it. Otherwise, please don’t waste the reader’s time.

Quote:
"Originally Posted by Little Les
Yes he did. He made a positive statement which he claimed was told to him by the Lord.

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep.”

But Paul was in error."

There are similar solutions to all of the so-called contradictions in the Bible<<

RESPONSE:

"Are they all as weak as the ones you’ve presented? "

“We” could have just been a poetic way of putting it, or even an excerpt from a hymn. Otherwise, you are claimed that Paul believed he had had a revelation from God that HE SPECIFICALLY would be alive at the coming of the Lord. He certainly didn’t seem to think this in some other letters - for one example see 2 Timothy 4:6. "

RESPONSE;

“We” could have just been refering to Jesus and Elvis in a UFO, but it wasn’t. It was a very specific claim identical to that reported of Jesus that:

" When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left"

and so:

“For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

And Paul didn’t write 2 Timothy. It was written after his death when it was realized that the second coming wasn’t imminent. Same story with 2 Thessolonians.

Both scriptural claims are in error and hence not inspired.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

RESPONSE:

If I give you the URL of the Library of Congress and claim that it contains proof that I am right , will you accept that as proof of any assertion I make? Do you really expect a reader to accept that kind of proof?

Ridiculous. So if you have an assertion to make and defend, please make it. Otherwise, please don’t waste the reader’s time.

This is a non-sequitur. I assure you, these URL’s are not nearly as long as the Library of Congress, and they are 100% relevant to the question you asked. I would not waste your time by posting spurious links, and I ask you not to waste mine either.

“For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

And Paul didn’t write 2 Timothy. It was written after his death when it was realized that the second coming wasn’t imminent. Same story with 2 Thessolonians.

Both scriptural claims are in error and hence not inspired.

Jesus did come in his kingdom at the institution of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Kingdom of God on Earth. There is double meaning in the passage, as there often is in Jesus’ statements. Some parts refer to the Church, others to the final coming at the end of time.

You need to PROVE a contradiction, not posit one as being “very likely”. You can’t PROVE that Paul didn’t write 2 Timothy, nor that it was written to cover up Paul’s earlier errors.

 

[Little_Les]

Neil_Anthony
Senior Member
Book Club Member Join Date: August 10, 2007
Posts: 355

Re: Nativity narratives

---

Thank you for the links, I was starting to have a real crisis of faith until I read that.

Here’s my favorite part:

“Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn’t governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died. Either Luke is wrong on his dating of Jesus’ birth or Matthew made up the story of Herod the Great and the killing of the infants. Is this an accurate objection?”"<<

RESPONSE:

Then observe the obvious which the writer acknowledges. Either Paul or Matthew are in error. Therefore, their Gospel is not inspired since any error is incompatible with divine inspiration.

The Governorship of Quirinius
In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius’ governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn’t use the official political title of “Governor” (“legatus”), but the broader term “hegemon” which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus."<<

RESPONSE:

No. Saturnius wasn’t the governor of Syria in 6 A.D. Titius was governor from 9 BC to 8 BC and Saturnius governed between 8 and 6 BC during the reigh of King Herod the Great.

Quirinius was the official governor in 6 A.D after Archelaus was deposed, Check out a good history textbook or even the New American Bible. Also read the History of the Jewish People by Josephus Flavus. Herod’s son was exiled and Herod’s land, Judea, came under direct Roman control. That’s why the dating is so well recognized.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RESPONSE:

So aside from the historical fact that Jesus was born, you are saying that the rest of the nativity narratives are in essence just folklore, not historical fact. Is that it?

No ​

I doubt they fit into any literary type - which is probably why they are found in gospels. They are a blend of Christian proclamation, history, theology, midrash; they also have connections with the primeval history in Gen. 1 to 11.

ISTM that to try to fit them into history, or folklore, is to impoverish them. It’s a bit like trying to make a sphere fit into square - it can’t really be done. It’s reductionist to treat them as history, just as it’s reductionist to try to treat the Resurrection as history, or the Ascension as a problem in celestial mechanics. To treat them like that is to objectify them within history & geography - it’s like trying to contain the Pacific in a bucket - it can’t be done. They are not objects within time & space, but Divine acts - objectifying them is like X-raying a Saint to find his holiness,only more so. That is what happens if things which pertain to God, Who is Holy, are treated like this-worldly realities - they are diminished by such treatment, & their significance is lost.

There is after all nothing special in stories of Virgin births - Jesus Christ would still be Christ the Lord even if His mother had been unfaithful with a Roman soldier (as one story has it). This birth is special because He Who is born is special, & for no other reason. Nothing matters except Him, & anything else can matter only because He does.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Then observe the obvious which the writer acknowledges. Either Paul or Matthew are in error. Therefore, their Gospel is not inspired since any error is incompatible with divine inspiration.

It’s very simple: Quinirius was in a position of authority during the 6BC census, he wasn’t the governor yet, and Luke doesn’t say he was governer yet. This cencus was in 6BC and carried out by Quinirius.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…Here’s the situation: The moment the Bible contains only great stories of myth meant to convey something about God and mankind without being historically accurate, then the Bible is not different in kind from the myths about Marduk and Baal and Ashera and other gods from the Old Testament. Those religions too have great stories that convey truths about those gods and mankind without necessarily being historically accurate. That is exactly what you assert about the Bible.

In many respects - not all - it is no different. JHWH is a common-or-garden ANE weather god - the Bible is different only from a perspective of faith. That is all - & it is everything. That is why makes the writings of an insignificant Semitic people are important - not what they were or did (culturally, they were pretty backward), but what God did. God is the difference between them & their neighbours: their culture was not the difference - it don’t make them different, it didn’t require God; they could have had it by worshipping some other god.​

Everything hangs on the electing purpose of the God of all creation Who made them a people, they did not. God, nothing & no one else, makes those writings unique. Not them. So there is ample room for mythology & fiction in the Bible - there are plenty of facts in the writings of others peoples, but that does not make those writings Holy Scripture. God creates Holy Scripture, - historical factuality & accuracy never yet created one word of Holy Scripture. They are nothing, without God. ##

Ditto Greek/Roman myths. The Greek & Roman myths are great stories that convey truths about the gods and mankind without necessarily being historically accurate – and that is exactly what you assert about the Bible.

The Bible is full of fictions - how does that make it untrue or not revelatory ?​

Ditto Norse mythology. It too is not different in kind from the Bible. It too is great stories meant to truths about the gods and mankind without necessarily being historically accurate – and that is exactly what you assert about the Bible.

Ditto Buddhist mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Shinto mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Taoist mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Hindu mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Celtic mythology, wiccan mythology, voodoo mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Native American mythology from all across the North American continent: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Most of these mythologies are not very like the mythology in the Bible​

And on and on around the entire planet. You have made the Bible not better than and not different in kind from the holy books of every religion in the world. With that done, we have no basis for claiming superiority.

We are not superior - we are better off, but not by nature any better; not by our doing, but by the free grace of God. We are to abase ourselves, not exalt ourselves.​

We have no basis for saying that our religion is more right.

We have no basis for saying that our God is the true God.

We have no standing to assert that our version of cosmic truth is better than the alleged truth of any other religion.

We have no standing to assert that other people are worshipping God incorrectly – or even that their God or gods are fake.

None. We’ve completely leveled the playing field.

That’s right - we are no better in ourselves than anyone else. It is God Who distinguishes us from others, not us. We are by nature scum - just like all other human beings. Christianity is not based on human excellence, but on the free & sovereign grace of God, which we can in no way deserve or anticipate. If we were wonderful people, God could do nothing for us - He cannot help anyone except the lowest of the low, because they are in no position to boast of their excellence; they don’t have any ​

If the Faith were founded on some other thing than Christ & His grace, it would not be worth joining.

Maybe that is what you want to say. Maybe you want to equate your religion with every other religion in the world. Great. You’ve done it. But I want no part of that religion. I should instead be an atheist because atheism is more honest about God, in that it doesn’t teach that people hear messages from a conflicted deity!

[more]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…ended]

scottm:

The New Testament on its face claims to be historical truth. You see it in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 15. The Old Testament also on its face claims to be historical truth. You see it in the altars set up here and there so that descendants would ask, “Hey, dad, why’s this here?” You see it in the geneaology written in there. You see it in the First Commandment, and Passover. **If Bible history is wrong then God did not come down from heaven and mingle in the affairs of humans in real life, real time, real space. And if God didn’t do that then Christianity is fake. **Deal with that.

Language about Divine motion is analogical, not proper; it is a way of speaking about what is altogether mysterious.​