Nativity narratives

[Ferdinand_Mary]

For the information of those involved in this thread, the quote function may be utilized quite easily and in a number of ways. First, there is the forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/quote.gif button at the bottom right of each post. By clicking this, the entire post can be quoted. If you desire to quote merely a part of the pertinent post, simply (1) delete the irrelevant text or (2) type the following at the end of your truncation:

Should you desire to quote particular segments, you can click and drag over a portion of text and then click the http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/quote.gif button at the top right of your response box. Should this prove for some reason undesirable, you may simply type

before the text you would like to quote and then end the relevant quotation in the manner described in (2), supra.

Quoting in this manner provides a much more readable post and facilitates moderation as I can clearly see what is new and what is old, and as you might imagine moderating is a very time consuming task.

I appreciate your understanding and cooperation, and look forward to a fruitful and graphically pleasing discussion.

God Bless,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Peter Holter posted:

truth cannot contradict truth,<<

Why (apart from the repeated teaching of the Church since 1893) can there not be inspiration with liability to error ?​

IMHO, the doctrinal of total inerrancy needs to be re-examined from all possible POVs, not just re-affirmed.* If* Providentissimus were the Magisterium’s latest word on the subject, things might be different; but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 1893.

Somebody should post the letter of Pius XII to Cardinal Suhard (1948).

 

[Little_Les]

Pillar_of_truth
Junior Member Join Date: July 12, 2005
Posts: 5

Re: Nativity narratives

---

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Les

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.<<

RESPONSE:

Referring a reader to a URL to “prove” a point admits that the poster isn’t able to argue the point himself.

 

[Little_Les]

Neil_Anthony
Senior Member
Book Club Member Join Date: August 10, 2007
Posts: 359

Re: Nativity narratives

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Les
"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.<<

RESPONSE:

We are talking about the 6 A.D. census. And Luke is quite clear, as are other historians, that Quirinius was the governor of Syria when Archalus, the son of King Herod the Great and heir that became ruler of Judea was exiled by the Romans.

Luke clearly does say Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time of the census.

Luke 2:2-3 “This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.” (NAB)

 

[Little_Les]

Why (apart from the repeated teaching of the Church since 1893) can there not be inspiration with liability to error ?​

IMHO, the doctrinal of total inerrancy needs to be re-examined from all possible POVs, not just re-affirmed.* If* Providentissimus were the Magisterium’s latest word on the subject, things might be different; but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 1893.

Somebody should post the letter of Pius XII to Cardinal Suhard (1948).

RESPONSE:

Actually, although a number of papal encyclicals since 1893 stressed the inerrancy of scripture, this had been a constant Church teaching up until about 1950.

But as with a number of traditional teachings which can’t really be defended except by appeals to “authority,” inerrency in scripture began to be downplayed.

“We don’t emphasize that anymore.”

 

[Little_Les]

Gottle of Greer posted:

IMHO, the doctrinal of total inerrancy needs to be re-examined from all possible POVs, not just re-affirmed. If Providentissimus were the Magisterium’s latest word on the subject, things might be different; but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 1893.<<

RESPONSE:

So you are admitting that the Church’s “constant” doctrinal teachings, infallible or not, can change?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Luke clearly does say Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time of the census.

Luke 2:2-3 “This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.” (NAB)

You’re using an english translation that loses some of the subtlety of the original Greek. Also the translators, not aware of the confusion, may have picked the wrong english word. The NAB is notorious for picking common words to make it easier to read, rather than strictly sticking to the original.

"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.

Justin Martyr’s Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a “procurator”, not a governor of the area of Judea."

 

[patg]

RESPONSE:

Actually, although a number of papal encyclicals since 1893 stressed the inerrancy of scripture, this had been a constant Church teaching up until about 1950.

But as with a number of traditional teachings which can’t really be defended except by appeals to “authority,” inerrency in scripture began to be downplayed.

“We don’t emphasize that anymore.”

At one time Catholics had what was essentially a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. Prior to the twentieth century the Catholic Church was as skeptical and fearful of scientific study of the Bible as many other Bible-toting Christians, even though the Bible did not figure as prominently in daily Catholic life as it did for Protestants. Two passages from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the Bible, *Providentissimus Deus *(1893), illustrate this point.

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.

. . . It follows that those who maintain that error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error (§§338, 340).

Note that the language is not that different from a typical fundamentalist position. Despite the enlightened nature of this encyclical, some ideas expressed in it were still caught up in a pre-scientific viewpoint. **In **the nineteenth century the Church was not yet making the distinction in Scripture between lack of error in scientific and historical teaching and the lack of error in moral and religious truth.

In 1943, on the fiftieth anniversary of Leo XIII’s encyclical, the Catholic Church’s perspective on biblical interpretation changed dramatically. Pope Pius XII issued a groundbreaking encyclical (Divino Afflante Spiritu) on biblical studies that gave Catholic biblical scholars the green light to employ all scientific means possible to explore the Bible in order to expound its meaning. It affirms that the Bible contains no errors in faith and morals.

The Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, “*On the **Historical Truth of the Gospels” (1964) *explains why the literal meaning of the Gospels does not always represent “historical truth” as we might naively conceive of it.

The Church has not taken a monolithic view of how one is to approach sacred Scripture for discerning God’s will. The Catholic position has progressed from what was essentially a pre-critical and ahistorical view of the Bible, consistent with fundamentalism, to a highly nuanced and historically-conscious view that stands in opposition to a fundamentalist approach.

 

[buffalo]

Will anyone read this?

** The Gospels are Historical**

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION is in full accord with:

The earliest Christian historians

Modern literary analysis

The doctrine of the church

Recent Church statements

The following pages contain the evidence for the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the reaction of the Church.

 

[TMC]

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. ##

The Bible is full of fictions - how does that make it untrue or not revelatory ? ## Most of these mythologies are not very like the mythology in the Bible ## 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. ## 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.

[more]

I think I am becoming a GoG groupie. Some posters here I agree with, some I argue with, but only few really improve my own understanding. Thanks for this one.

 

[Little_Les]

You’re using an english translation that loses some of the subtlety of the original Greek. Also the translators, not aware of the confusion, may have picked the wrong english word. The NAB is notorious for picking common words to make it easier to read, rather than strictly sticking to the original.

"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.

Justin Martyr’s Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a “procurator”, not a governor of the area of Judea."

I think most of us who have studied Roman history realize that the term “governor” is not part of a Roman hierarchy." Procurator "is the Roman equivalent.

But if you want to claim that the English translation means something different than the original Greek, please clearly identify the relevant difference.

 

[Little_Les]

At one time Catholics had what was essentially a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. Prior to the twentieth century the Catholic Church was as skeptical and fearful of scientific study of the Bible as many other Bible-toting Christians, even though the Bible did not figure as prominently in daily Catholic life as it did for Protestants. Two passages from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the Bible, *Providentissimus Deus *(1893), illustrate this point.

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.

. . . It follows that those who maintain that error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error (§§338, 340).

Note that the language is not that different from a typical fundamentalist position. Despite the enlightened nature of this encyclical, some ideas expressed in it were still caught up in a pre-scientific viewpoint. **In **the nineteenth century the Church was not yet making the distinction in Scripture between lack of error in scientific and historical teaching and the lack of error in moral and religious truth.

In 1943, on the fiftieth anniversary of Leo XIII’s encyclical, the Catholic Church’s perspective on biblical interpretation changed dramatically. Pope Pius XII issued a groundbreaking encyclical (Divino Afflante Spiritu) on biblical studies that gave Catholic biblical scholars the green light to employ all scientific means possible to explore the Bible in order to expound its meaning. It affirms that the Bible contains no errors in faith and morals.

The Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, “*On the **Historical Truth of the Gospels” (1964) *explains why the literal meaning of the Gospels does not always represent “historical truth” as we might naively conceive of it.

The Church has not taken a monolithic view of how one is to approach sacred Scripture for discerning God’s will. The Catholic position has progressed from what was essentially a pre-critical and ahistorical view of the Bible, consistent with fundamentalism, to a highly nuanced and historically-conscious view that stands in opposition to a fundamentalist approach.

I completely agree with what you have written except for the last paragraph. The Church has certainly take a “monolithic” view of scripture and insisted that everyone accept its interpretation or be anathmatized.

This view has been included in the decrees of several ecumenical councils and quoted in several papal encyclicals.

Technically, its still on the books.

 

[patg]

I completely agree with what you have written except for the last paragraph. The Church has certainly take a “monolithic” view of scripture

Maybe I should have said “The Church no longer takes a ‘monolithic’ view…”

and insisted that everyone accept its interpretation or be anathmatized.

The Church requires doctrinal assent to the interpretation of only a few passages.

This view has been included in the decrees of several ecumenical councils and quoted in several papal encyclicals.

Technically, its still on the books.

Yes, it’s on some books and there are those who only reference those books, ignoring where the Church is today.

 

[Little_Les]

Maybe I should have said “The Church no longer takes a ‘monolithic’ view…”

The Church requires doctrinal assent to the interpretation of only a few passages.

Yes, it’s on some books and there are those who only reference those books, ignoring where the Church is today.

No. Assent is required to all of the Church’s interpretations of scripture.

The decrees I am referring to are the pronouncements of ecumenical councils. Aren’t these infallible and thus “irreformable”?

Vatican I:

“Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals,
belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine,
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.
In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.”

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

I find it amusing that Little Les, while disagreeing with it, at least knows what the Catholic position is, and knows that infallible statements cannot be later contradicted without destroying the edifice of the Catholic Faith. Others, meanwhile are too busy giving away the Catholic Faith to defend the little they have left.

Well, Little Les, to satisfy your apparent inability to follow a link, I will give the arguments that the links contained (in a separate E-mail) plus another intriguing possibility that has not yet been considered here. I do this not for you, as you seem to be closed minded and only aiming at harming the faith of others, but for those others who may actually be convinced by your sophomoric arguments.

Believe it or not, the Church has had answers to these supposed “contradictions” since the very beginning.

 

[patg]

No. Assent is required to all of the Church’s interpretations of scripture.

The decrees I am referring to are the pronouncements of ecumenical councils. Aren’t these infallible and thus “irreformable”?

Yes,assent is required to all of the Church’s interpretations of scripture. ***BUT ***the Church has dogmatically declared a required interpretation for only a small handful of scripture passages.

The Church admits that we don’t have all the answers. Look at the following from the The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels:

*Since there will never be an end to (biblical) problems, the Catholic exegete should never lose heart in explaining the divine word and in solving the difficulties proposed to him. Rather, let him strive earnestly to open up still more the real meaning of the Scriptures. *

The Pontifical Biblical Commission explicitly states that the gospels are not necessarily literal history - read the above document, it is online.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

To sum up, the Greek term that is translated “Governor” in the version you quoted is “hegemon”, which covers various types of rulers. The Greek term “legatus” would be the proper word to use specifically for governor. If the census being referred to was the one around 6 BC or so, Quirinius could well have been put in charge of the census, with Varus actually being the governor.

From the Encarta Encylopedia - “Aided by a procurator, who was charged with financial affairs, the governor was responsible for the running of the province”

Justin Martyr specifically states in the early 2nd century that Quirinius was the PROCURATOR of Syria, NOT the governor, at the time the census which caused Mary and Joseph to travel to Bethlehem was issued.

This information is plenty to put to rest the charge that there is necessarily a contradiction in the Scriptural text. Let us all pray for an increase in the virtue of faith. Scripture really is without error, when understood correctly in terms of the literary genre it was written in.

NOW, the really interesting stuff: a historian named Ernest Martin has challenged the entire notion that Herod died in 4 BC, and has put together a really interesting argument that Jesus was actually born in 3 BC, while Herod died in 1 BC. This date also makes sense of the astronomical activity reported in Scripture before and after the time of Jesus’ birth.

This time, I am not going to type in the entire argument, it would take me a LONG time, but for those who are interested, the outline of the argument can be found here:

versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html

And, yes, in spite of Little Les’s contention, it IS possible to understand an argument at a webpage, even if you choose to post the URL instead of rewriting the entire webpage in your own words.

The book “The Birth of Christ Recalculated” by Ernest Martin may be of particular interest to you if you find this as interesting as I do.

 

[Little_Les]

I find it amusing that Little Les, while disagreeing with it, at least knows what the Catholic position is, and knows that infallible statements cannot be later contradicted without destroying the edifice of the Catholic Faith. Others, meanwhile are too busy giving away the Catholic Faith to defend the little they have left.

Well, Little Les, to satisfy your apparent inability to follow a link, I will give the arguments that the links contained (in a separate E-mail) plus another intriguing possibility that has not yet been considered here. I do this not for you, as you seem to be closed minded and only aiming at harming the faith of others, but for those others who may actually be convinced by your sophomoric arguments.

Believe it or not, the Church has had answers to these supposed “contradictions” since the very beginning.

Yes indeed. Church apologists have developed a number of explanations, no matter how far fetched, to try to explain away the obvious errors in scripture.

But common sense and the plain meaning of words defeats these attempts.

 

[Little_Les]

Yes,assent is required to all of the Church’s interpretations of scripture. ***BUT ***the Church has dogmatically declared a required interpretation for only a small handful of scripture passages.

The Church admits that we don’t have all the answers. Look at the following from the The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels:

Since there will never be an end to (biblical) problems, the Catholic exegete should never lose heart in explaining the divine word and in solving the difficulties proposed to him. Rather, let him strive earnestly to open up still more the real meaning of the Scriptures.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission explicitly states that the gospels are not necessarily literal history - read the above document, it is online.

RESPONSE:

A “dogmatic definition” of scripture is NOT required. Church authority is all that is necessary. As in this interpretation:

"This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."

Therefore:

“(You)have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture”

No dogmatic definition need for the Church to interpret scripture, and one is a heretic for not believing the Church’s interpretation.

Please provide the exact or as you call it “explicit” statement that scripture is no to be interpreted “literally” and also the date of that statement.

 

[RyanL]

Yes indeed. Church apologists have developed a number of explanations, no matter how far fetched, to try to explain away the obvious errors in scripture.

But common sense and the plain meaning of words defeats these attempts.

Translation: Yeah, you have answered me soundly but I refuse to listen because my interpretation is infallible.

Thin, Les. Very thin.

God Bless,
RyanL