Nativity narratives

[Pillar_of_truth]

No. Jesus sent for two animals and rode on two animals so he could fulfill a prophecy for Zec 9:9. Of course, Mark, Luke, and John say only one animal. Riding two animals of different sizes would be stuntriding and memorable.

Our very own esteemed Jimmy Akin has already answered a question about this in great detail.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/06/what_jesus_rode.html

I am posting the link because I am too stupid to understand the argument myself. If I were smart enough to understand it, rest assured that I would type out the entire argument, just to show you how smart I am and to keep poor Les from being disoriented when the web page suddenly changes.

 

[Little_Les]

Our very own esteemed Jimmy Akin has already answered a question about this in great detail.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/06/what_jesus_rode.html

I am posting the link because I am too stupid to understand the argument myself. If I were smart enough to understand it, rest assured that I would type out the entire argument, just to show you how smart I am and to keep poor Les from being disoriented when the web page suddenly changes.

Then I’ll explain Akins’s errors for you.

Yes, Jimmy tries and fails using the old argument trying to get around what is clearly written, but is absurd.

First of all, the “them” clearly refers to the animals, not the clothing, unless Matthew changed pronoun reference in midsentence. If it were only the clothing and not the riding, than there would have been no reason to send for two animals. (Remember, the other evangelists say (only) one animal. So there even a contradiction at this point).

And the text makes it clear that Jesus is riding two animals. Not riding one with the other in tow.

And old Jimmy even is confused by the Jewish idiom in Zechariah. So was Matthew. The meaning is “even” not “and.”

In sum, Jesus sent for and used two animals according to Matthew (to fuffill what he calls a prophecy but misunderstood). But only one animal according to the other three writers.

Since 1 is a different number than 2, we have a contradiction in supposedly"inspired" thus"error free" scripture.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

Then I’ll explain Akins’s errors for you.

Yes, Jimmy tries and fails using the old argument trying to get around what is clearly written, but is absurd.

First of all, the “them” clearly refers to the animals, not the clothing, unless Matthew changed pronoun reference in midsentence. If it were only the clothing and not the riding, than there would have been no reason to send for two animals. (Remember, the other evangelists say (only) one animal. So there even a contradiction at this point).

And the text makes it clear that Jesus is riding two animals. Not riding one with the other in tow.

And old Jimmy even is confused by the Jewish idiom in Zechariah. So was Matthew. The meaning is “even” not “and.”

In sum, Jesus sent for and used two animals according to Matthew (to fuffill what he calls a prophecy but misunderstood). But only one animal according to the other three writers.

Since 1 is a different number than 2, we have a contradiction in supposedly"inspired" thus"error free" scripture.

I’m not even sure you read what Jimmy posted based on what you wrote. I can believe many things, but I do not believe that you understand Greek and Hebrew better than Jimmy.

As Jimmy says, Matthew is simply giving more detail about the event. The others are just mentioning the primary animal, which was the colt. Is condensation of the story really that hard to understand?

Yes, Matthew’s gospel was written with the Jewish audience in mind, so he puts down enough detail to show that the Zechariah prophecy was fulfilled. The other Gospels, which were not specifically targeted for Jews, give a more abbreviated version of the story.

If you and I see the same event, we may well differ on what is important to write down, and there may even be seeming contradictions in what we wrote.

 

[TOME]

Little Les,
As I continue to read all your post I am left wondering just what your point is concerning the Nativity Narratives. Perhaps you will update me on your position.

Also, in Pope Benedict XVI’s book, “Jesus of Nazareth” in the preface he brings up, what I think is an important point, an interesting development in modern scriptural scholarship, that is the scriptures in general and thus the gospels must be seen as a whole. Each book of the bible compliments the other. Our Holy Father even mentions how American scholars have been in the forefront of this movement.

If you read many of the works of american scholars you might find, as I have, that their approach to the gospels is to see them not (to use a popular analogy) as photos but as protraits of Christ.
Each of the gospels has the same subject (Christ) but just as different artist will paint a portrait of the same subject each of their emphasis will be different. So too with the gospels, each gospel writer emphasizes a different aspect of Christ depending on what faith community the writer is coming from and writing for.
Also, just as with a protrait where the artist is painting a definite historical subject but not always with the accuracy of a photograph, so too with the gospels.

This is what I was refering to in an earlier post when I tried to convey that the gospels proclain the truth of Christ not necessarily explain the historical figure of Jesus. This does not mean a separation of the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith - just the opposite. I say this because to understand both a true Christology must see beyond the phenomenon of the immediate historical events to something greater, namely the ontological truth proclaimed in and through the gospels.

Innerancy is not contingint upon accurate historical recording in the modern sense of the word. One must see how each gospel proclaims the kerygma to its faith community. It is the same true but expressed in different styles or modes to different people with different cultures and needs.

To insist that each gospel renders the same account with the same accurcy was never accepted by the Church which is partle why Marconian gospel was rejected. The gospels must be seenas as portraits not photos proclaiming ontological truth of Christ Jesus.

 

[Little_Les]

I’m not even sure you read what Jimmy posted based on what you wrote. I can believe many things, but I do not believe that you understand Greek and Hebrew better than Jimmy.

As Jimmy says, Matthew is simply giving more detail about the event. The others are just mentioning the primary animal, which was the colt. Is condensation of the story really that hard to understand?

Yes, Matthew’s gospel was written with the Jewish audience in mind, so he puts down enough detail to show that the Zechariah prophecy was fulfilled. The other Gospels, which were not specifically targeted for Jews, give a more abbreviated version of the story.

If you and I see the same event, we may well differ on what is important to write down, and there may even be seeming contradictions in what we wrote.

We might, but we’re not “inspired” writers. Are you really going to claim that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, inspired the evangelists to say different thing?

Do you really expect us to believe the part about the other three writers only mentioning the “primary” animal if two were involved and Jesus rode on two to fulfill a prophecy which mistakenly has Jesus riding on two animals.

Come on. Nobody’s that gullible! Of course there are exceptions.

It it truly amazing to length that “true believes” will go to to try to maintain that scripture is inerrant!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

At least in the Leonine sense, yes. But what about the rest of the Church’s life ?​

The notion of TE is not unambiguous; & its application is not free of ambiguity. It is far from clear that what (say) St. Augustine says on the subject is equivalent in meaning to what Leo XIII says on it; quotation of words is not enough - it can hide differences in the ideas the words express. There are genuine difficulties here (as I pointed out when this was discussed on B’net ) - & they are not always resolved by being ignored. Sometimes they do sort themselves out - but not always.

I don’t think that inerrancy is very useful or very important -it’s not something I bother about when reading the Bible. I think it gets far too much attention, to the detriment of much more important things. If salvation depended on having absolute certainty about the location of Mount Sinai, it would be exceedingly important to know its location. The Bible gives different traditions - so it can hardly be regarded as a matter of salvation or damnation.

Salvation is by Christ - not by having absolute certainty about the location of a mountain. Salvation is what God does - to make possession of knowledge of the location of a place a matter of salvation or death, is to subsistute works for grace, & knowledge for faith. It is very close to idolatry As long as God knows us, our ignorance of the location of Mount Sinai (because of the different traditions about it) is of no importance at all.

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.

The UK Catholic bishops have not affirmed it - they allow for error; & Rome has not complained. They teach errantism, not TE. What are UK Catholics to think ?​

“We don’t emphasize that anymore.”

I’m not altogether convinced that this so. I don’t believe in TE, but I’m not going to say that there is no sense whatever in which TE cannot be both an intelligible concept and applicable to the texts. Theology is full of surprises, & it’s important not to dull the capacity to be surprised - there are senses & applications in which TE is simply not true, & cannot be true; but it does not follow that it cannot be true in some sense. But simply to affirm it is not enough: inspiration is not the solution to it - it is itself a problem.​

• catholic-ew.org.uk/nav/giftofscripture.htm
• catholic-ew.org.uk/publications/Gift%20of%20Scripture%20text.pdf
• Lecture by Henry Wansbrough at the Gift of Scripture Launch

 

[Neil_Anthony]

We might, but we’re not “inspired” writers. Are you really going to claim that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, inspired the evangelists to say different thing?

Do you really expect us to believe the part about the other three writers only mentioning the “primary” animal if two were involved and Jesus rode on two to fulfill a prophecy which mistakenly has Jesus riding on two animals.

Come on. Nobody’s that gullible! Of course there are exceptions.

It it truly amazing to length that “true believes” will go to to try to maintain that scripture is inerrant!

I think you’d find the same thing with biographies written by any two people. On the surface they might seem different or even contradictory, but if you got the two writers together in the same room, they could talk about it and then you could see what they both meant, and how the contradiction isn’t there. I see this all the time in meetings when people get together to discuss misunderstandings over technical documents. Written language has great benefits but it also has its little traps.

I think that’s what we’re seeing in these examples.

But what really convinces me is that we know that the gospels took years to take their final forms. If there was an obvious blunder in Luke 2, then someone would have pointed it out to Luke and he would have fixed it.

When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, there could have been a number of animals in the procession, not just 1 or 2. I think that Matthew probably took the psalm to mean that there was a donkey and a colt, and so he recorded the presence of the colt. The other authors took the psalm to mean just the donkey, and so didn’t bother mentioning the colt. That doesn’t seem that far-fetched to me.

Surely you don’t disagree that Matthew and John were both there when Jesus rode into Jerusalem? So what exactly do you think happened? Did they each write their own gospels and argue about it with each other and part ways because they coudln’t agree? I think its much more likely that the contradiction simply isn’t there, it’s just a case of one giving more detail than the other.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Note two things,

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is only an advisory group. Their authority is not be compared with, nor can they overrule, an ecumenical council or even a papal encyclical. Nor do they speak for the Church.

But what they say certainly has merit even if it contradicts earlier teachings. But don’t let that get back to the curia.

Please note that the year was 1964. About 1950, as I mentioned in a earlier post and I think someone else did likewise, the Church’s " constant" traditional teaching on the inerrrancy of scripture started to unravel.

However, according to this:​

THE ROMAN CURIA

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

[/index.htmroman_curia (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm)

The PBC is certainly among “the departments of the Roman Curia” - including:

[/index.htmpontifical_commissions (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/index.htm)

• Cultural Heritage of the Church
• Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”
• Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archeology
  Pontifical Biblical Commission
  vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_index.htm
• International Theological Commission
• Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church
• Pontifical Commission for Latin America
  The logic which allows us to ignore the PBC, allows us to ignore the rest of these “departments of the Roman Curia”. The PBC is among them, & “[it] perform[s its] duties in [the Pope’s] name”, just as they do. That some of these are Commissions, some Committees, some Congregations, in no way alters the fact that they speak in the name of the Pope, & not in that of their members.They most definitely “speak for the Church”.

Which is problematic, given this present issue…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.<<

If a young rose didn’t change, it could never become the rose it was meant to become - that is one kind of change: an internal one​

It can also change by having weed-killer sprayed on it - it won’t be a rose for long after that, if it happens. That is an internal change as a result of an external action.

It can also change, by having something grafted into it from outside that it did not previously have (I think this is correct - horticulture is not my thing )

It can also change by being trodden on - so it gets bent out of shape.

There are many different kinds of change, & some are necessary for growth - others are very bad for healthy growth. A rose that refuses to blossom, because it has not prevously done so, is refusing to become what it is; which is not healthy.

There is no one satisfactory description or model of change, because things are different: what is good & right & even necessary for a rose, could be extremely unhealthy for a human being, because we are not roses.

ISTM this is true of doctrinal change, & & of doctrine, & of tradition, & of the Church in general, & of individual members of Christ. That’s why I’m not a “traditionalist” - I think we have to be open to other kinds of change than the obviously continuous ones: not for the sake of change, but so as to avoid being deaf to the Holy Spirit. I think this is necessary in order for Tradition to be preserved &, more importantly, to be living & fruitful. If we are going to talk of Tradition, I think that it is necessary to find fresh ways of doing so, because no one model for a real thing (especially a thing that has something supernatural about it, as Tradition has) is fully adequate to it. Tradition is in fact profoundly mysterious - this is not an evasion, but a fact.

It is by attending to things that are more important than (say) Tradition, that the health of Tradition is secured - on the principle that as long as we seek the Kingdom of God first, everything else will be “added to [us]”. Give the less important things first place - & we will gain neither the Kingdom, nor them. ISTM there can be genuine continuity & change - as in the change from the Church’s former doctrine regarding religious liberty. The change may be a challenge to faith - but faith grows by being exercised; not by having a nap. This can lead to all sorts of paradoxes, like the incident in Gen. 22; but God has nowhere said that He will always appear to be faithful to us - only that He is faithful.

I think you’ve opened a sizeable can of worms It’s a huge question

 

[Pete_Holter]

Good morning Gottle of Geer, and may the Lord be with you!

THE ROMAN CURIA

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

Isn’t it made explicit in documents produced by the Curia when the Pope “makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia” to exercise his power?

“The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication.” - Dominus Iesus

“The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.” - Responses Regarding the Doctrine on the Church

The rest of this is not directed toward you per se, but is for all of us…

Although it has already been posted several times in this thread, the following quote from Divino Afflante Spiritu bears repeating: “In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”[3] 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, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.”

Again, in Humani Generis, Pius XII states: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

"Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical ‘Providentissimus Deus,’ and Benedict XV in the Encyclical ‘Spiritus Paraclitus,’ as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical ‘Divino Afflante Spiritu.’”

The constant and unchanging faith of the Catholic Church is that “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum 11) and is therefore free from all error.

The exegete of Scripture “should never forget that the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit when they preached the good news; that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error.” The Historicity of the Gospels - Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1964.

“While constantly defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures as such, the Church has never claimed unalterable perfection for her own officially approved Latin edition of the Scriptures, and has sought to improve that version several times.” Translations and the Consultation of the Nova Vulgata of the Latin Church - Congretation for Divine Worship in a letter “to an English-speaking bishop”, 2001.

"Let these words sink into your ears: Every word of God proves true” (Luke 9:44; Proverbs 30:5).

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you so much Mr. Holter, for posting these quotes from the Vatican II documents. This whole thread has sent me for a loop, and left me wondering if the church really had abandoned the faith of the previous 1900 years. Thank you for pointing this out.

Good morning Gottle of Geer, and may the Lord be with you!

Isn’t it made explicit in documents produced by the Curia when the Pope “makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia” to exercise his power?

“The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication.” - Dominus Iesus

“The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.” - Responses Regarding the Doctrine on the Church

The rest of this is not directed toward you per se, but is for all of us…

Although it has already been posted several times in this thread, the following quote from Divino Afflante Spiritu bears repeating: “In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”[3] 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, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.”

Again, in Humani Generis, Pius XII states: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

"Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical ‘Providentissimus Deus,’ and Benedict XV in the Encyclical ‘Spiritus Paraclitus,’ as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical ‘Divino Afflante Spiritu.’”

The constant and unchanging faith of the Catholic Church is that “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum 11) and is therefore free from all error.

The exegete of Scripture “should never forget that the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit when they preached the good news; that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error.” The Historicity of the Gospels - Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1964.

“While constantly defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures as such, the Church has never claimed unalterable perfection for her own officially approved Latin edition of the Scriptures, and has sought to improve that version several times.” Translations and the Consultation of the Nova Vulgata of the Latin Church - Congretation for Divine Worship in a letter “to an English-speaking bishop”, 2001.

"Let these words sink into your ears: Every word of God proves true” (Luke 9:44; Proverbs 30:5).

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all!

 

[Little_Les]

You assert this, but this is not what Christians believe. There certainly was A census conducted by Quirinius in 6 A.D., but it is our contention that this is not the census that Luke is referring to. If you had been following the argument at all, I’m surprised you didn’t pick that up.

The important thing is that “hegemon” is not a term specifically linked to “governor” but is a more generalized term for “leader” or “ruler”. Justin Martyr specifically states in the early 2nd century that Quirinius was the procurator of Syria, not the governor, at the time this census was undertaken.

RESPONSE:

The word" governor" was developed from the French via Old Latin in 1257. The word didn’t even exist when the Gospels were written. However, modern translators realized that it would be accurate in current usage and better understood than “procurator.”

Thus your argument falls flat. Quirinius was the “boss” of Syria and Judea when he took the census in 6. A.D.whatever you want to call him.

Would you like a longer list than Luke and Josephus of early mostly Roman historians attesting to that fact?

 

[Little_Les]

However, according to this:​

THE ROMAN CURIA

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

[vatican.va/roman_curia (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm)/index.htm

The PBC is certainly among “the departments of the Roman Curia” - including:

[vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/index.htm)/index.htm

• Cultural Heritage of the Church
• Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”
• Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archeology
  Pontifical Biblical Commission
  vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_index.htm
• International Theological Commission
• Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church
• Pontifical Commission for Latin America
  The logic which allows us to ignore the PBC, allows us to ignore the rest of these “departments of the Roman Curia”. The PBC is among them, & “[it] perform[s its] duties in [the Pope’s] name”, just as they do. That some of these are Commissions, some Committees, some Congregations, in no way alters the fact that they speak in the name of the Pope, & not in that of their members.They most definitely “speak for the Church”.

Which is problematic, given this present issue…

We’re getting a bit off topic, but if you look it up you will find that the Pontifical Biblical Commission lost its curial status in the early 1900’s and is now only advisory.

It lost it’s status soon after it published On the Historical Truth of the First Three Chapters of Genesis , 1907, (in which Catholics were told, among other things, that they had to believe that Eve was literally tempted by that old snake in the grass).

 

[Little_Les]

Getting back to the Nativity Narratives, we find much contradiction in these supposedly divinely inspired writings.

1.Observe that Matthew is absolutely explicit that he is listing “the total number of generations” (Matt 1:7) and that he is giving the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Do you think he told the truth?

1. Matthew omits three kings of Israe (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah)l so he is not giving the “total number” And his three sets of 14 would be 42 persons. Matthew lists only 41 names.

3 Matthew includes Jeconaih in his geneaology. But In punishment for Jeconiah’s sin, God ordained that none of Jeconiah’s seed would reign over Israel.

4 Luke also claims to be listing the genealogy of Joseph (Luke 3:23) . Do you think he is telling the truth?

5 While Matthew’s genealogy continues with Solomon after David, Luke’s begins with Nathan who was never a King of Israel. According to 1Chron 22:9, it is Solomon’s, not Nathan’s, whose kingdom will last forever.

6 Curiously, both Salathiel and Zorobabel are in both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies even though Luke’s is suppose to be of Nathan’s progeny, not Solomon’s .

7 Matthew lists Jacob as the father of Joseph. Luke lists Heli as Joseph’s father.

1. Luke list a remarkable larger number of generations than does Matthew. Luke lists 40 generations between David and Joseph while Matthew lists only 25.

Are the writers both divinely inspired? Hardly.

 

[patg]

We’re getting a bit off topic, but if you look it up you will find that the Pontifical Biblical Commission lost its curial status in the early 1900’s and is now only advisory.

I find it untenable that an instruction to the faithful ending with the following quote is assumed by some to be heretical…

"The Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, at the audience graciously granted to the undersigned secretary on April 21, 1964, approved this Instruction and ordered the publication of it."

As we have discussed before on these forums, “truth” can take many forms - total fiction can teach inerrant truth.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Are the writers both divinely inspired? Hardly.

Hi Little Les,

Which one do you think was inspired, Matthew or Luke? Do you think we should switch to 3 gospels instead of 4?

 

[Little_Les]

Hi Little Les,

Which one do you think was inspired, Matthew or Luke? Do you think we should switch to 3 gospels instead of 4?

Since we are told that divine inspiration is incompatible with even the slightest error, using that criterion, none of the gospels are inspired.

 

[Little_Les]

Little Les,
As I continue to read all your post I am left wondering just what your point is concerning the Nativity Narratives. Perhaps you will update me on your position.

Also, in Pope Benedict XVI’s book, “Jesus of Nazareth” in the preface he brings up, what I think is an important point, an interesting development in modern scriptural scholarship, that is the scriptures in general and thus the gospels must be seen as a whole. Each book of the bible compliments the other. Our Holy Father even mentions how American scholars have been in the forefront of this movement.

If you read many of the works of american scholars you might find, as I have, that their approach to the gospels is to see them not (to use a popular analogy) as photos but as protraits of Christ.
Each of the gospels has the same subject (Christ) but just as different artist will paint a portrait of the same subject each of their emphasis will be different. So too with the gospels, each gospel writer emphasizes a different aspect of Christ depending on what faith community the writer is coming from and writing for.
Also, just as with a protrait where the artist is painting a definite historical subject but not always with the accuracy of a photograph, so too with the gospels.

This is what I was refering to in an earlier post when I tried to convey that the gospels proclain the truth of Christ not necessarily explain the historical figure of Jesus. This does not mean a separation of the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith - just the opposite. I say this because to understand both a true Christology must see beyond the phenomenon of the immediate historical events to something greater, namely the ontological truth proclaimed in and through the gospels.

Innerancy is not contingint upon accurate historical recording in the modern sense of the word. One must see how each gospel proclaims the kerygma to its faith community. It is the same true but expressed in different styles or modes to different people with different cultures and needs.

To insist that each gospel renders the same account with the same accurcy was never accepted by the Church which is partle why Marconian gospel was rejected. The gospels must be seenas as portraits not photos proclaiming ontological truth of Christ Jesus.

After all is said and done and the rationalizations have been attempted, what remains is:

It happened and it’s history.

or

It didn’t happen and it’s not history. (It may be legend, folklore, parable, midrush, or fiction of some other type).

But if it is suppose to be divinely inspired, it can’t contain the slightest error, or God becomes the author of error.

 

[davidv]

After all is said and done and the rationalizations have been attempted, what remains is:

It happened and it’s history.

or

It didn’t happen and it’s not history. (It may be legend, folklore, parable, midrush, or fiction of some other type).

But if it is suppose to be divinely inspired, it can’t contain the slightest error, or God becomes the author of error.

Fortunately these are not the only choices. Another choice is that it is revelation from God presented in a non-literalistic way.

 

[patg]

But if it is suppose to be divinely inspired, it can’t contain the slightest error, or God becomes the author of error.

Once again I read that “legend, folklore, parable, midrash, or fiction of some other type” can’t teach innerrant truth. None of those terms are synonyms for untruth - they define the literary form, NOT the quality of truth in the writing.

So where else can we go on this topic? We have all posted our favorite quotes from popes, encyclicals, papal commissions, etc. which absolutely prove that our side is the correct one. No one has given an inch either way (except that those who are new to this subject have probably run far away by now). And no one on either side has been condemned by our church.