Seeking a fresh reading of the nativity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Riley259
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Riley259

Guest
The Boston Globe has a spiritual life section in it’s paper every Saturday and today’s article focused on a new book by progressive theologians on the nativity. The book is entitled, “The First Christmas” by author Michael Borg and co-author dissident ex-Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan. Summarizing points he makes in the book, Borg claims that a literal belief (i.e., Virgin birth, etc.)of the Nativity is absurd. He then goes on to explain the relationship to Jesus’s birth and his political place in the Roman world. He sees the Gospels as “pervasively anti-imperial”. He’s also quoted as saying, “the authors did not intend these as historical, factual accounts”. Gee, given the rest of the incredibly accurate historical nature of the New Testament accounts (especially Luke’s), you could have fooled me. Borg is an Episcopalian (I guess we shouldn’t be surprised about that). Compared to Orthodox Christianity, these guys are so far off the reservation that it’s laughable but the Globe presents it as something that should be taken seriously. Any thoughts?
 
Riley259 said:
The Boston Globe has a spiritual life section in it’s paper every Saturday and today’s article focused on a new book by progressive theologians on the nativity. The book is entitled, “The First Christmas” by author Michael Borg and co-author dissident ex-Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan. Summarizing points he makes in the book, Borg claims that a literal belief (i.e., Virgin birth, etc.)of the Nativity is absurd. He then goes on to explain the relationship to Jesus’s birth and his political place in the Roman world. He sees the Gospels as “pervasively anti-imperial”. He’s also quoted as saying, “the authors did not intend these as historical, factual accounts”. Gee, given the rest of the incredibly accurate historical nature of the New Testament accounts (especially Luke’s), you could have fooled me. Borg is an Episcopalian (I guess we shouldn’t be surprised about that). Compared to Orthodox Christianity, these guys are so far off the reservation that it’s laughable but the Globe presents it as something that should be taken seriously. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I wish we could just say, “Don’t take their opinions regarding their rejection of the Virgin Birth seriously.”

But they’re already saying that about the literal reading of Virgin Birth itself.

It doesn’t seem that these kinds of heretical and spurious thoughts which deny the valid truths of the Catholicism will go away any time soon either.

We’ll just have to be ready to protect others by leading them away from these heretical thoughts-- and lead them toward The Truth of Jesus’ Virgin Birth (a Truth which these “educated scholars” are virtually attempting to rape via the pollution of their crude and blasphemous “intellectual ejaculations”).

Perhaps if Michael Borg and John Dominic Crossan would stop so vigorously masturbating their theological views toward us we could actually take the time to engage them in serious Catholic ecumenical dialogue.

At this time, however, I see no chance of this happening. They are simply too spiritually warped and theologically perverted to see The Catholic Truth of the Virgin Birth of Christ.
 
Riley259 said:
The Boston Globe has a spiritual life section in it’s paper every Saturday and today’s article focused on a new book by progressive theologians on the nativity. The book is entitled, “The First Christmas” by author Michael Borg and co-author dissident ex-Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan. Summarizing points he makes in the book, Borg claims that a literal belief (i.e., Virgin birth, etc.)of the Nativity is absurd. He then goes on to explain the relationship to Jesus’s birth and his political place in the Roman world. He sees the Gospels as “pervasively anti-imperial”. He’s also quoted as saying, “the authors did not intend these as historical, factual accounts”. Gee, given the rest of the incredibly accurate historical nature of the New Testament accounts (especially Luke’s), you could have fooled me. Borg is an Episcopalian (I guess we shouldn’t be surprised about that). Compared to Orthodox Christianity, these guys are so far off the reservation that it’s laughable but the Globe presents it as something that should be taken seriously. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I forgot to include a link to the article. Here it is:

boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/22/seeking_a_fresh_reading_of_the_nativity/
 
Riley259 said:
Sorry, I forgot to include a link to the article. Here it is:

boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/22/seeking_a_fresh_reading_of_the_nativity/
Click to expand...
Thanks 🙂

As for this:
…In his book, Borg, an Episcopalian, and coauthor John Dominic Crossan, a former Catholic priest, argue that a literal reading of the Nativity story is impossible for many modern Christians. Science and biblical scholarship have corroded belief in concepts like the virgin birth.

But the virgin birth is one of the few points of agreement in the starkly different birth accounts of Matthew and Luke. There’s no manger in Matthew’s telling, which also has the Holy Family living in Bethlehem before Jesus’ birth, not visiting for a census.

But believers need not reject the Gospels because they aren’t always historically accurate, Borg said.

“Reading the stories carefully suggests that the authors themselves did not intend these as historically factual accounts,” he said in an interview between conference sessions…
Click to expand...

All true - & not controversial​

…The birth stories and the Gospels generally are “pervasively anti-imperial,” he said. Jesus’ listeners would have heard his references to the kingdom of God as a direct challenge to the Roman Empire under whose occupation they lived. Jesus meant the kingdom of God to be an earthly one,
Click to expand...

👍​

not just a blissful gift in the afterlife; the Lord’s Prayer pleads that “thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven.”

Borg defines imperialism in the book as being beyond territorial conquest and including political and economic imperialism, which has controversial implications when applied to the modern Rome, i.e., the United States…
Click to expand...

This may be controversial,but it is a perfectly legitimate application of the Gospel (see the Magnificat in Luke 1). God is not on the side of the mighty, but of the weak & poor. The Gospel is a threat to the powerful - that’s partly why Jesus was hated: He preached something that upset people. The Gospel is meant to make a difference: not to protect human selfishness, power, & pride.​

They can’t not be anti-imperial, because they lead to the coming of the Kingship not of Rome then, not of the USA or Europe now, but of Jesus Christ, the only Lord & only King. Christ is Lord, & no human ruler or president. Ten cheers for Borg & Crossan, I say 🙂 This is spot on - & as orthodox as could possibly be wanted.
 
Something struck me as I read the article that Riley 259 provided for us which is how similar are the understanding of the Infancy Narratives Michael Borg and John D. Crossan is with more convential Catholic theologians such as Pope Benedict XVI. In the Infancy Narratives we find something more profound than a historical account of how Jesus was born and the reality or truth revealed through the Infancy Narratives can be lost if we only approach them as literal accounts. Maybe what they are trying to teach us is don’t let so called facts stand in the way of the truth.

I am somewhat familiar with the works of both Michael Borg and John Crossan but I find in their works something lacking. It is not a lack of scholarship but for me they too miss a fundamental truth
of the scriptures. I have to admit I often find interesting and inspiring insights in there works but one of the things that has always struck me as a flaw has been their emphasis on the economic/political aspects of our life. It seems to me that they truly believe if we away with the evils of the structure of modern society all would be different and that an egalitarian society is the goal of Christianity.

Perhaps Borg and Crossan views are presented in a fresh way for many however when I compare and contrast their views with that of Pope Benedict XVI I find one essential difference, amoung others differences, namely Our Holy Father has, in all the writing of his I have read, emphasize the personal metanoia demanded by Christ in Mark 1.

This metanoia has to be rooted first in our awareness of God’s Unconditional and incomprehensible Love first expressed in his creation of the universe (imagine all of the Cosmos created just for us) and finding its fullness in the Incarnation-Passion- Death and Resurrection of Christ and our response to this love. Without this metanoia and a life lived in response to God’s all our human efforts are doomed to failure. I think this was a position Benedict took in his book “Jesus of Nazareth” and because of this he was highly criticized as if he was saying working for a just society was not important. It is but what is essential is the “Why” we must work for a just society. In his work, “The Apostles” our Holy Father points this out when realting about the great insight of Paul in regards to the relationship between Faith and works.

I didn’t intend this post to be an apologia of the pope’s theology, what my intention was, and is, is to say that as fresh as Borg/Crossan approach to the Infancy Narratives may be it fall short of being truly radical when compared to what Pope Benedict has written.
 
Riley259 said:
The Boston Globe has a spiritual life section in it’s paper every Saturday and today’s article focused on a new book by progressive theologians on the nativity. The book is entitled, “The First Christmas” by author Michael Borg and co-author dissident ex-Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan. Summarizing points he makes in the book, Borg claims that a literal belief (i.e., Virgin birth, etc.)of the Nativity is absurd. He then goes on to explain the relationship to Jesus’s birth and his political place in the Roman world. He sees the Gospels as “pervasively anti-imperial”. He’s also quoted as saying, “the authors did not intend these as historical, factual accounts”. Gee, given the rest of the incredibly accurate historical nature of the New Testament accounts (especially Luke’s), you could have fooled me. Borg is an Episcopalian (I guess we shouldn’t be surprised about that). Compared to Orthodox Christianity, these guys are so far off the reservation that it’s laughable but the Globe presents it as something that should be taken seriously. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I read the article and thought it was actually quite good. Clearly you didn’t but that’s apparent from your pejorative remarks regarding the authors. I actually disagree that the accounts are anti-imperialism. They may be anti-Rome but they are highly imperialistic in their approach themselves. This is no doubt due to the degree that imperialistic language was the norm, and our writers were no different, simply transferring the imperialism from Rome to Jesus.

Some find any challenge to the bible on factual grounds threatening. I really don’t agree that they have much evidence that the birth of Jesus was not miraculous, so I think it better to avoid that particular issue at all. The rest of what they say I think is essentially correct. It is most unclear to me that many of these tories were meant to convey historical facts. Such was not the nature of story in those times. What I find the more I study is the incredibly gifted writers we have here. They had a definite message to convey and were quite brilliant in working whatever writings, oral or written they had at their disposal.
 
Or … read the existing nativity narratives … with with this slightly different perspective:

God is INFINITE. Infinite in time, space, … and creativity. And in dimension. We humans are limited to three or four dimensions … but God has infinite dimensions. We can’t even CONTEMPLATE more than four or five.

And when we think of creativity, we usually think of a writer or a sculptor or a musician. But think of God’s creativity, when He created from nothing … think of a Sculptor who didn’t have stone to work with … so He “invented” and created stone … from nothing.

So, when you read the usual narratives … be thinking about how and why God, the INFINITE, decided to show up here as a human baby. With the whole Old Testament prophecy preceeding Him.

We read from Isaiah … hundreds of years before Christ … imagine that … can you imagine a prophecy from hundreds of years ago applying to something that is going to happen the day after tomorrow?

Just let your mind “expand” … take in the way the Incarnation unfolded in the context of God and His Infinity.

Just the word, “incarnation” … the turning into “meat”.

Strikes me as mind-bogglingly amazing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top