"Notorious historical problems" in Luke?

[SpiritMeadow]

In view of Luke’s emphasis on the role of women I would suggest that Mary and the other women were his eye witnesses. I would suggest that, while the men were out fishing and/or preaching, Luke sat down by the stream, where the women were washing clothes, and let them relate their memories.

Pehaps, I’ve never read anything on the subject as far as I can recall. I doubt the women were not also preaching and teaching as well, but Luke may well have been one of their students. The fact is that we have of course no copies of any written material any of the gospel writers had at their disposal. Some no doubt was oral in nature. We have only defined “Q” by virtue of the word phrasing in both Matthew and Luke that suggest they shared a source and that phrasing is absent from Mark, suggesting he did not use it, if indeed he was aware of it. Such is not new to ancient writings. It is most clear that the final redactor of Genesis had two writings, or oral transmissions regarding creation. He included them both. We of course have no copies of those originals today. We simply understand they existed from the texts themselves…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If God really directed what the authors wrote, wouldn’t God have saved them from all errors, not just errors of faith and morals? To say that there aren’t errors in faith and morals seems like a cop-out because, after all, no one can disprove it. So the text is full of other types of errors, but we assume no errors in faith and morals. It just seems suspicious to me.

perhaps it is. It perhaps is a cop-out. I prefer to assume that men wrote the bible in all its various guises alone and without active help. I believe truly that they did so with honesty, integrity, and with every attempt to be accurate about those things they considered esstential for those who read their work. If one approaches a task with a sense of faith and humility, I consider that inspired. I believe they truly and without question believed what they wrote, and that gives me great confidence in the essence of what they wrote. As to particulars, that are not important per se, I have no such confidence. these were for the most part driven men, driven to convince others. They manipulated material to that purpose. Not in any wrong, lying way, but naturally as anyone does who is wriitng apologetically.

I much prefer modifying our understanding of what constitutes error. For example, recognizing that facts stated as assumptions rather than as assertions, whether accurate or not, are not errors.

If you modify it, you are of course in danger of making the word meaningless. Catholicism, by this sort of methodology is in danger of becoming another of those strange faiths that is inexplicable in its explanation since it no longer adhers to any sense of common logic and reasoning. Visit Scientology or Mormonism for that kind of black is white and white is black analysis. I can’t stomach it.

It might sound like playing word games, but we’re talking about something we love here. When we talk about a person we love, if we must point out a flaw, we do it in the kindest way possible.

I find nothing going on that is unkind. You must realize that these threads are hardly new. We;ve been over them time and again. There is nothing harsh in saying that the bible contains many errors. They are well known. I recall a monk who created a translation and warned in the margins other scribes to transmit his words exactly and not creatively which had become all too common. Scribes regularly made errors, and often added or subtracted words or phrases they thought erroneous or heretical themselves. We have little idea of what the original texts were like. We know they were very close, but there simply are errors. A comparison of the thousands of copies serves to point this out clearly to anyone taking a look.

Also, if we can determine which types of errors the text really is preserved from (if any) then we can know which theological messages might be erroneous too. For example some of the old testament teachings on morals seem erroneous.

I’m not prepared so say there are erroneous moral messages. One must always take what is written in context and the context often is what was the author attempting to do. This is most dramatic in Paul. His misogyny is well known. The debate has gone on for years, did Paul really believe in this, or was he simply asking for suspension of the doctrine of all are one, neither male nor female, slave nor free, before God, to address a church threatening problem with Greco-Roman norms? The jury is still out.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So if the bible is full of mistakes written by regular people, then does that make it into basically an inspiring story book? It’s still very inspiring I guess. But if it’s just something some regular people made up then it’s hard to take it seriously. Was Jesus really “the way the truth and the life” or is that just something some poet thought we’d find inspiring? It is inspiring. But if it’s not true then maybe I should look elsewhere. Why spend all this time trying to get to know Jesus if maybe he isn’t “the way”?

I am always puzzled when folks think if anything is proven incorrect, just toss the book. The book is written in myriad forms, by all sorts of people, some more gifted in writing than others surely, some more pious than others surely, some with more material at hand, and some undoubtedly with more accurate material. The errors are almost always about matters of no especial importance. If Luke was unclear about when the census was, and had no one who seemed to know for sure, what is wrong with taking the best answer and moving on? Did this in any way impact on the value of the stories he told about Jesus? I would say no.

The fact that there is so much agreement between the 3 gospels, suggests that especially Matthew and luke considered Marks’ work and sources accurate, since they used them themselves. Whether Jesus was the way the truth and the light is a matter of faith. John certainly thought he was, and was reflecting what a goodly number of other people thought. Some of these folks had been eye witnesses. I give great credence to the fact that many were willing to die for this belief. It suggests that as to its reflections on Jesus they felt very sure of the truth. And I give that huge weight in my determination. I find the more human the writers, the more likely it is to be accurate in its essentials. Ironic from your point of view I guess.

Or the guy who wrote the psalm that says “The Lord hears the cry of the poor”… does the Lord really hear the poor? Or is it just something that makes us feel good? I’d like to know. Otherwise it might be just a bunch of wishful thinking. If any old guy can just start writing poems and thats what the bible is then… maybe its just the wishful thinkings of the Hebrews? If so, why is that any better than my own wishful thinkings? I hope the Lord hears the cry of the poor too. But does He really?

There were may psalmists. They wrote prayers, asking for God’s help. You do not ascribe the same requirement ot the authors of whatever you sing in Church on sunday do you? People believe that it is efficacious to ask God for assistence in times of distress. I do as well. A psalmist did as well. I don’t know what more you expect or ask. I doubt anyone knows the answer to anything until they die. Then all is revealed one way or another. I feel fairly certain in my own mind that God is aware of everything that each of his creatures, human or otherwise does. I’m not so sure it’s God’s way to intervene except again, through his creatures. But I defy you to find proof that he does or doesn’t. It is in the end faith, and that means it can’t be proven. You can try to turn a book into proof, but again, that but denies the concept of faith. Holy books are there for a quite different reason. They are to give us the benefit of the god-thinking of others and how they related to God. They are also missives about how historical events occured. Here they may be inaccurate about certain aspects because they simply did not view history the way we do today, yet the core of the story is not thereby jeopardized.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

SpiritMeadow:

I prefer to assume that men wrote the bible in all its various guises alone and without active help. I believe truly that they did so with honesty, integrity, and with every attempt to be accurate about those things they considered esstential for those who read their work. If one approaches a task with a sense of faith and humility, I consider that inspired. I believe they truly and without question believed what they wrote, and that gives me great confidence in the essence of what they wrote. As to particulars, that are not important per se, I have no such confidence. these were for the most part driven men, driven to convince others. They manipulated material to that purpose. Not in any wrong, lying way, but naturally as anyone does who is wriitng apologetically.

This summation of your belief is very enlightening, albeit unfortunate. You seem to be approaching the Bible as if it is the work of men, albeit driven, honest, and ingenuous. You think that therefore the Bible is inspired, at least as much as meets your needs.

The Church teaches, on the other hand, that the Bible is the Word of God. God has indeed provided ACTIVE HELP to the various writers of the books of the Bible, contrary to your assertion. Did the writers realize AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITING that they were being guided by the Holy Spirit? Perhaps not.

God’s help is rarely (if ever) understood or recognized AS IT HAPPENS. It is only discernible in hindsight. This was true of most of the teachings of Jesus with his Apostles. They weren’t really aware of the fullness of his doctrine, nor the very nature of their Leader, while He walked the earth with them. This came later, after the Resurrection, and with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

This continues to happen to the Church in general, and to us as individuals.

So scholars that think that the Bible is obviously the work of men, with such and such abilities, using such and such literary devices is just so much chaff. God used these writers to say what HE wanted said because they suited HIS purpose. It is not the other way around, and it is NOT Catholic to say so.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This summation of your belief is very enlightening, albeit unfortunate. You seem to be approaching the Bible as if it is the work of men, albeit driven, honest, and ingenuous. You think that therefore the Bible is inspired, at least as much as meets your needs.

I’m not exactly sure what the "as much as meets your needs means except to sarcastically claim that I ignore parts of the bible as I desire. That is not at all true of course. And if you determine that it was written differently than I suggest, then take it up with the two theologians, one a priest, the other a dominican nun, both receiveing their doctorates at the finest theological school in the world so I’m told.

The Church teaches, on the other hand, that the Bible is the Word of God. God has indeed provided ACTIVE HELP to the various writers of the books of the Bible, contrary to your assertion. Did the writers realize AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITING that they were being guided by the Holy Spirit? Perhaps not.

You cannot of course prove your assertion that God did a thing. I expect each writer was in communion with God and that was the essence of their inspiration. Their love of God and desire to share that love with others. How else you explain the Church’s position on evolution and creation? Obviously God did not write creation, since it is two different stories. Why did he need to tell it twice, why did he compell the final redactor to include two stories. Why do we not believe in the story literally today? Are these examples of your inerrency?

God’s help is rarely (if ever) understood or recognized AS IT HAPPENS. It is only discernible in hindsight. This was true of most of the teachings of Jesus with his Apostles. They weren’t really aware of the fullness of his doctrine, nor the very nature of their Leader, while He walked the earth with them. This came later, after the Resurrection, and with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

You may mere assertions. You have no evidence one way or the other. A goodly number of folks have claimed that God has personally led them. Our president claims this is so. Many, including Mark were rather chagrined that some of the apostles were so obtuse. They certainly all weren’t. Many of the women didn’t seem to be, nor a lot of others Jesus met. The woman at the well seemed to know exactly who he was, she was the first to preach the Gospel.

This continues to happen to the Church in general, and to us as individuals.

So scholars that think that the Bible is obviously the work of men, with such and such abilities, using such and such literary devices is just so much chaff. God used these writers to say what HE wanted said because they suited HIS purpose. It is not the other way around, and it is NOT Catholic to say so.

Amazing that you set yourself as authority over tens of thousands who have studied these things for their entire professional lives. You have no proof of any of this. You simply regurgitate Catholic doctrine. If God used writers, he used them about as poorly as one could since 2000 years later we are still arguing what they mean and why they are in such contradiction with so much empirical fact. The bottom line is you believe what you have chosen to believe. You have given over your thoughts on God to an entity and let them explain what,you should believe and feel. Of course the vatican supports and has supported exegesis on these very issues and both JPII and Benedict have been clear that many of the stories we read in the texts are not to be taken literally are as actual happenings at all. A fair reading of both Theology of the Body, and In the Beginning make that most clear.

 

[sawman]

Dear Spirit Meadow,
I think you are educated beyond your intelligence.I’ll stick to pre-modern exegetes.If a scholar’s opinions undermine the faith,my judgement is that it is better to ignore them until such time as the Majesterium has spoken. Thanks for your opinions,though.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

SpiritMeadow:

I’m not exactly sure what the "as much as meets your needs means except to sarcastically claim that I ignore parts of the bible as I desire.

No, nothing of the sort. What I meant was that your idea of “inspired” is so weak and debilitated that in effect it means at best “inspirational.” When the Church uses the word “inspired” word of God, the Church means God is the author using the writer who is open to His Holy Spirit.

You cannot of course prove your assertion that God did a thing. I expect each writer was in communion with God and that was the essence of their inspiration. Their love of God and desire to share that love with others. How else you explain the Church’s position on evolution and creation? Obviously God did not write creation, since it is two different stories. Why did he need to tell it twice, why did he compell the final redactor to include two stories. Why do we not believe in the story literally today? Are these examples of your inerrency?

Those are good questions. Do you suppose everything in the Bible is only properly understood by intensely scholarly Biblical experts? Does God make some things difficult to understand to keep Biblical experts employed? I don’t think so. There is much in the Bible that can’t be easily explained, even by the Church. That is precisely the reason we NEED the Church to interpret the Scriptures. But no single Theologian, Biblical expert, archaeologist, Priest, Nun etc. etc. can speak for the Church, and neither can little groups of them. Their opinions are important and necessary, indeed, but that does not give them the right to TEACH in opposition to the Church. That is wrong.

So in answer to your question, I say that God most certainly does have a reason, and our understanding may not be ready, or may be too clouded to understand what He has said through the writer of Genesis. On the other hand, the problems may be of no importance to God’s people, as they aren’t trying to do an autopsy of Scripture, they are trying to hear the voice of God in Scripture.

Amazing that you set yourself as authority over tens of thousands who have studied these things for their entire professional lives. You have no proof of any of this. You simply regurgitate Catholic doctrine.

That, my dear SpiritMeadow is why we are Catholics! Having the Authority of Catholic Doctrine behind us is proof against even the most exalted scholar(s). If we wanted to argue endlessly over every trifling matter, or worse, just not care about any of it, we could be Protestants. Protestants have no need for a Divine Authority vested in a living Church present on Earth. Private judgement is everything. Private scholarship is all equally valid and equally invalid. You just can’t have it both ways. You have to decide which one is right.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I prefer to assume that men wrote the bible in all its various guises alone and without active help. I believe truly that they did so with honesty, integrity, and with every attempt to be accurate about those things they considered esstential for those who read their work. If one approaches a task with a sense of faith and humility, I consider that inspired. I believe they truly and without question believed what they wrote, and that gives me great confidence in the essence of what they wrote.

So would you say that the bible contains revelation? Does God speak to us through the bible, or is it human beings speaking to us about God? Or is it maybe both at the same time?

Has God revealed anything about Himself to us? And if so, has He revealed it through the bible?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I am always puzzled when folks think if anything is proven incorrect, just toss the book. The book is written in myriad forms, by all sorts of people, some more gifted in writing than others surely, some more pious than others surely, some with more material at hand, and some undoubtedly with more accurate material.

I do not mean to say that the bible should be “thrown out” if your take on inspiration is correct, or if it contained error. If the bible is what you see it as, then it still has great value to inspire people. But then my search for God would be truly my own, picking between the teachings of the worlds religions, adding in a few ideas of my own, and basically coming up with my own unique spirituality. Which is a bit different than how I approach the bible. I’m sure that approach has some value too.

The errors are almost always about matters of no especial importance. If Luke was unclear about when the census was, and had no one who seemed to know for sure, what is wrong with taking the best answer and moving on? Did this in any way impact on the value of the stories he told about Jesus? I would say no.

That’s just it, the mistakes (in some cases) are not important to the message. In other cases the message itself is affected by the ‘error’, like saying that God ordered the killing of every man woman and child in Jericho. Also there are references to an incorrect cosmology all over in the OT.

I think both can be explained as erroneous assumptions which got included with the message. I suspect you see it that way too. I think there is a significant difference between an erroneous assumption and an error in someone’s main point. They deserve different terms. To just call them both ‘errors’ doesn’t do it justice. Maybe erroneous assumptions vs erroneous messages?

Think of it like if you have a child with a developmental problem. You don’t call the child a ‘retard’, you would say that the child is special, or has special needs or challenges, is unique, etc. Sure, maybe the child will be ‘delayed / retarded’ in his development, but why use the word retard when you can view it in a positive way?

The fact that there is so much agreement between the 3 gospels, suggests that especially Matthew and luke considered Marks’ work and sources accurate, since they used them themselves. Whether Jesus was the way the truth and the light is a matter of faith. John certainly thought he was, and was reflecting what a goodly number of other people thought. Some of these folks had been eye witnesses. I give great credence to the fact that many were willing to die for this belief. It suggests that as to its reflections on Jesus they felt very sure of the truth. And I give that huge weight in my determination. I find the more human the writers, the more likely it is to be accurate in its essentials. Ironic from your point of view I guess.

I think I agree with you, mostly. I also think God helped them write the Gospels in a way that would reach out to us. This inspiration might have been very subtle, I don’t really know.

There were may psalmists. They wrote prayers, asking for God’s help. You do not ascribe the same requirement ot the authors of whatever you sing in Church on sunday do you? People believe that it is efficacious to ask God for assistence in times of distress. I do as well. A psalmist did as well. I don’t know what more you expect or ask.

I expect the songs at church to be in line with the psalms and the bible. Because the bible is authoritative as well as inspiring. The songs are not authoritative in themselves, but can be very inspiring. And when the psalm says that “God hears the cry of the poor” I believe that God is telling me that He hears the cry of the poor. That’s why God worked things out so that this psalm was in the bible.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Dear Spirit Meadow,
I think you are educated beyond your intelligence.I’ll stick to pre-modern exegetes.If a scholar’s opinions undermine the faith,my judgement is that it is better to ignore them until such time as the Majesterium has spoken. Thanks for your opinions,though.

Thanks for the nice slam. and you go right ahead and continue relying on pre-modern exegetes. That makes incredible sense!
If your faith is such that it can be undermined by the work of a scholar’s explanation about some point about a census, then by all means, close your ears. Thanks for your opinion too.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I have read it, Yes I reject it. Mr. Barton is simply inaccurate even in his brief claims. The authors of the Gospels are not largely unknown. Mark existed. His name was Mark. there is disagreement whether he was a follower of Peter or rather Paul and was the John Mark mentioned as a traveler with Paul. The majority opinion remains what it is. ECF’s had not the literary techniques available to us today. I am not surprised they might have erred on issues that are of no particular importance to faith. I do not care which side ends up prevailing on who wrote first. It has zero to do with my faith. That is does for some is unfortunate nd is probably the result of being told that the bible was literal much in the fundamentalist tradition. that is simply not Catholic.

I say he is accurrate.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, nothing of the sort. What I meant was that your idea of “inspired” is so weak and debilitated that in effect it means at best “inspirational.” When the Church uses the word “inspired” word of God, the Church means God is the author using the writer who is open to His Holy Spirit.

That is not what I have been taught. And it makes the bible a very strange thing indeed if you so claim. You create a God of the bible who is most strange, irrational, contradictory, who tells the same story through three people, who gives us two creation stories, two flood stories. and a host of mathmatical errors, location errors, etc. Were all the scribes and transcribers similarly inspired such that in essence God is the author? Then why all these translations? You simply argue yourself into a box that you cannot get out of.

Those are good questions. Do you suppose everything in the Bible is only properly understood by intensely scholarly Biblical experts? Does God make some things difficult to understand to keep Biblical experts employed? I don’t think so. There is much in the Bible that can’t be easily explained, even by the Church. That is precisely the reason we NEED the Church to interpret the Scriptures. But no single Theologian, Biblical expert, archaeologist, Priest, Nun etc. etc. can speak for the Church, and neither can little groups of them. Their opinions are important and necessary, indeed, but that does not give them the right to TEACH in opposition to the Church. That is wrong.

I believe that a good deal of the bible cannot be read prudcutively without expert help.That is certainly true of philosophy and theology. That begs the question as to why God would make it difficult at all. Obviously it is, since we have 35,000 or so sects of Christianity, all arguing what the Bible says. And the Church derives its conclusions from other theologians and biblical experts, it just sometimes choses a different group than I would. You argue that that means the HS is making the final choices. It’s a neat little package, but hardly sensible. Why was this necessary in the first place? Apparently the teaching you disagree with is not considered heresy since are not prohibited for doing so. Oh sure, a theologian or two is suppressed for a while, then magically, he or she is removed 20 years down the road. I guess the HS can’t make up her mind? I think not. I think it’s just which view holds sway at the time.

That, my dear SpiritMeadow is why we are Catholics! Having the Authority of Catholic Doctrine behind us is proof against even the most exalted scholar(s). If we wanted to argue endlessly over every trifling matter, or worse, just not care about any of it, we could be Protestants. Protestants have no need for a Divine Authority vested in a living Church present on Earth. Private judgement is everything. Private scholarship is all equally valid and equally invalid. You just can’t have it both ways. You have to decide which one is right.

That is precisely what does not happen. We have no lock on dogma. We and those within church hierarchy argue and disagree constantly on this stuff. You cannot seriously maintain that the Church is not constantly engaged in discussion and disagreement about any number of topics within “dogma.” We are but the lowest rung of that ladder. The higher ups just do it with more scholarship than we do.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So would you say that the bible contains revelation? Does God speak to us through the bible, or is it human beings speaking to us about God? Or is it maybe both at the same time?

Has God revealed anything about Himself to us? And if so, has He revealed it through the bible?

Both I would argue. God speaks to us, but through individuals. So God does reveal himself, and humans reveal their beliefs about God. All visions of God are valuable, because each of us is given the opportunity to fashion our view of God, and not having to do so in a vacuum as our earliest ancestors did, is certainly of value. The Bible is the premier Christian text for that. That does not mean that other Christian texts do not aid us as well, and may provide invaluable help in our understanding. But God reveals thoughout his creation, down to the tiniest of pebbles, at least to me.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

SpiritMeadow:

You create a God of the bible who is most strange, irrational, contradictory, who tells the same story through three people, who gives us two creation stories, two flood stories. and a host of mathmatical errors, location errors, etc. Were all the scribes and transcribers similarly inspired such that in essence God is the author? Then why all these translations? You simply argue yourself into a box that you cannot get out of.

No no no. I am just regurgitating Church doctrine, as you put it so picturesquely. I am not the one arguing myself into a box. Your disagreement is with the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. But for another example take transubstantiation. Isn’t that just Church blather about something that doesn’t really scientifically happen? Why would God institute something so important and so central to Catholicism that makes so little sense, and is so completely contradictory and confusing? Do you have trouble with The Real Presence, and Transubstantiation? If not, then why would you have any difficulty with God’s sublime reasons for having the Bible written as it was? Do you suppose with enough scholarship anything God does can be unraveled? Or is it not rather Faith that is our only bridge to God?

SpiritMeadow:

We have no lock on dogma. We and those within church hierarchy argue and disagree constantly on this stuff. You cannot seriously maintain that the Church is not constantly engaged in discussion and disagreement about any number of topics within “dogma.” We are but the lowest rung of that ladder. The higher ups just do it with more scholarship than we do.

I couldn’t disagree with you more. The Catholic Church most certainly has a “lock” on Dogma. Dogma (in my usage- and in the Church’s) is simply the Deposit of Faith that was passed on by the Apostles of Jesus Christ through the Holy Scriptures and Tradition. The Catholic Church has been guarding and passing along this most holy and unchanging Deposit of Faith ever since then. What HAS been changing is the deepening awareness of the full depth of this Deposit of Faith, which itself never changes. This is why there are several levels of assent or Faith required by various Church doctrines, depending on the matter at hand. The Nicene Creed for example is fundamental, and requires full undoubted Faith. That the Holy Scripture is the Word of God, meaning God is the author is another fundamental Dogma.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I do not mean to say that the bible should be “thrown out” if your take on inspiration is correct, or if it contained error. If the bible is what you see it as, then it still has great value to inspire people. But then my search for God would be truly my own, picking between the teachings of the worlds religions, adding in a few ideas of my own, and basically coming up with my own unique spirituality. Which is a bit different than how I approach the bible. I’m sure that approach has some value too.

It has been the considered opinion of many who are deeply involved in the ecumenical movement that at their basic core, most all religions teach the same basic concepts of morality. I believe that it is encumbent on every individual to study broadly. Only in this way can one make an informed decision that one particular faith tradition makes more sense to them. It seems to me that a faith should resonate in your heart. I believe that the '“intuitive” feeling is the Spirit within us speaking. If we listen, we are, I find, guided to the faith or blending of faiths that our particular individual makeup is best suited for. In essence, we find what connects us best to the divine.

That’s just it, the mistakes (in some cases) are not important to the message. In other cases the message itself is affected by the ‘error’, like saying that God ordered the killing of every man woman and child in Jericho. Also there are references to an incorrect cosmology all over in the OT.

I think both can be explained as erroneous assumptions which got included with the message. I suspect you see it that way too. I think there is a significant difference between an erroneous assumption and an error in someone’s main point. They deserve different terms. To just call them both ‘errors’ doesn’t do it justice. Maybe erroneous assumptions vs erroneous messages?

Think of it like if you have a child with a developmental problem. You don’t call the child a ‘retard’, you would say that the child is special, or has special needs or challenges, is unique, etc. Sure, maybe the child will be ‘delayed / retarded’ in his development, but why use the word retard when you can view it in a positive way?

I agree that we suffer from a lack of clarity about the words we use. Error seems to upset some folks terribly. Errors can mean many things, from spelling errors, to transcription errors, to mathmatical errors, to theological errors. Obviously many are of no consequence whatsoever, others are doctrinal and very important. We can never get to the real issues because some react to viscerally to the term and start launching the apologetic defense of inerrency. It’s a pity that so many fine discussions are derailed this way. I certainly expected when I first arrived here that I could engage in serious exegetical discussions. I was disabused of that notion on my first post! It’s all about apologetics here, defend defend defend. I was just shocked since I assumed among Catholics there would be no need. I was greviously wrong.

But then, I’m 57 years old and had never heard of the type of Catholic prevelent here. Oh that is not entirely true. Every parish has its “difficult” people, who grab Father after every mass and begin arguing interpretation, and who call often wondering if this is “proper” or that floral arrangement is in keeping with proper Catholic etiquette, but nothing like the folks here. I assume, that most here are distributed across the parish landscape in the same way. Frustration at being ignored, they have found a voice here, and plenty of folks who agree with them.

I think I agree with you, mostly. I also think God helped them write the Gospels in a way that would reach out to us. This inspiration might have been very subtle, I don’t really know.

The difficulty with placing too much emphasis on God’s active involvement in the Bible is that it makes God rather strange and absent minded looking? The disjointed array of books, the contradictions, the doubling of stories, and in some cases ala the synoptics, tripling of stories, get you into a sticky situation vis a vis those who argue that it is a purely human invention. Would God actually write to us this way? The 10 Commandments make sense in that view, direct and quite simple and not especially open to alterate interpretations. Not much else however is like that. I don’t believe for instance that God ordered any group of people to wipe out another and destroy their animals and children as well. That is not a God I understand. I think that the Hebrews used such a device to give a “right” to what they simply did. They took over the land, and were not overtly punished, therefore, God willed they do it. It’s a convenient claim to say the least that God ordained that it happen.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

c

I expect the songs at church to be in line with the psalms and the bible. Because the bible is authoritative as well as inspiring. The songs are not authoritative in themselves, but can be very inspiring. And when the psalm says that “God hears the cry of the poor” I believe that God is telling me that He hears the cry of the poor. That’s why God worked things out so that this psalm was in the bible.

I don’t think we have to be told that God listens to the crys of the poor. If we did not believe that, there would be little point to faith at all. Sure, God exists, end of story. So no, I don’t believe that God made sure that we understood that. I guess I feel that if God has to tinker that much to the point of inserting words in our minds for us to write down, then he’s not much of a creator. I expect and believe my creator is a good deal more elegant than that. The bible if read literally suggests God is constantly surprised at how we fail. He did not know this beforehand? He was the designer after all. So no, literalism fails for me in every way. It produces a God I cannot relate to. I have for some time concluded that God must be at least as grand and magnificant as anything I can think of. that is my standard.

Therefore it is beyond me to believe that God inspired a book that is so disjointed that 2000 years later, something in excess of 35,000 separate Christian sects are still trying to define exactly what it says and what it means. I prefer to think that God can do better than this. Of course, I will undoubtedly hear that God can do whatever he wishes and I am not privy to his plans. But that but begs the question, since no one else does either.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It has been the considered opinion of many who are deeply involved in the ecumenical movement that at their basic core, most all religions teach the same basic concepts of morality. I believe that it is encumbent on every individual to study broadly. Only in this way can one make an informed decision that one particular faith tradition makes more sense to them. It seems to me that a faith should resonate in your heart. I believe that the '“intuitive” feeling is the Spirit within us speaking. If we listen, we are, I find, guided to the faith or blending of faiths that our particular individual makeup is best suited for. In essence, we find what connects us best to the divine.

Hmm, but Jesus didn’t tell us to go out and learn about other religions did He? He said to follow Him!

I agree that we suffer from a lack of clarity about the words we use. Error seems to upset some folks terribly. Errors can mean many things, from spelling errors, to transcription errors, to mathmatical errors, to theological errors. Obviously many are of no consequence whatsoever, others are doctrinal and very important. We can never get to the real issues because some react to viscerally to the term and start launching the apologetic defense of inerrency. It’s a pity that so many fine discussions are derailed this way.

Oh, sorry about that. Maybe you could have those discussions without using the word error?

But then, I’m 57 years old and had never heard of the type of Catholic prevelent here. Oh that is not entirely true. Every parish has its “difficult” people, who grab.

They say that birds of a feather flock together, and it must be true. Because I encounter catholics who are pretty conservative quite a bit. I think it’s also a generational thing. I’m 36.

The difficulty with placing too much emphasis on God’s active involvement in the Bible is that it makes God rather strange and absent minded looking? The disjointed array of books, the contradictions, the doubling of stories, and in some cases ala the synoptics, tripling of stories, get you into a sticky situation vis a vis those who argue that it is a purely human invention. Would God actually write to us this way?

Well I never even considered that the entire bible was put together by God as if God wrote it Himself. I think of each individual author as asking God for assistance with his writing, and God answering their prayers. Not dictating words, but inspiring the authors with ideas during their meditations.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t think we have to be told that God listens to the crys of the poor. If we did not believe that, there would be little point to faith at all. Sure, God exists, end of story.

Well, by definition if God is omniscient, and the poor are crying, God will hear it. But when I hear that line I am hearing two things, first a promise from God that He is going to help the poor, and second a command from God that we had better not be the cause of the poor suffering, or else. It might be obvious to you, but I bet there are a lot of wealthy conservative Christians who need to hear that.

The bible if read literally suggests God is constantly surprised at how we fail. He did not know this beforehand? He was the designer after all. So no, literalism fails for me in every way. It produces a God I cannot relate to. I have for some time concluded that God must be at least as grand and magnificant as anything I can think of. that is my standard.

There’s a whole spectrum of grey between complete literalism and the way you look at scripture. Of course God doesn’t get surprised.

Therefore it is beyond me to believe that God inspired a book that is so disjointed that 2000 years later, something in excess of 35,000 separate Christian sects are still trying to define exactly what it says and what it means. I prefer to think that God can do better than this. Of course, I will undoubtedly hear that God can do whatever he wishes and I am not privy to his plans. But that but begs the question, since no one else does either.

I think the bible is difficult to comprehend intentionally; it was done so that we would have to think hard and meditate on it. Maybe not so much on the contradictions between different books, but even the words of Jesus are hard to understand. But yes clearly it wasn’t just dropped down from heaven as a completed work. But like I just said there’s a huge range of different understandings between complete literalism and what you believe in.