RESPONSE:That’s an interesting response. What about Melchezedik (no record of death), Enoch (walked with God - no record of death) and Elijah (carried up in a chariot of fire - no record of death?).
As to Mary - its not stated or defined by Church doctrine - so not sure of your certainty on that either - but happy to understand more your thinking.
Blessings,
Brian
RESPONSE:No. That was not uncommon in those times. It didn’t make something false or spurious.<<
LOL - fair point re: my Melchezedek referenceRESPONSE:
Is there any reference to St. Joseph’s death? Was he assumed into heaven too?
I’m pretty certain that all people die. Have you any specific proof to the contrary? Not just that somebody told you some didn’t. History and fiction are different.
Not Worthy posted:
Originally Posted by JP Marat
The writings described also were not written by the names asribed to them. In short, they are forgeries. Or spurious writings as the CE calls some of them.
Ah, good one! No, it’s fairly certain that St. John didn’t pull a Methusalah and live til the 5th century. What does that prove. There were many writings that were written under a different name. It wasn’t frowned upon during this time.No. That was not uncommon in those times. It didn’t make something false or spurious.<<
RESPONSE:LOL - fair point re: my Melchezedek reference
What about Enoch (walked with God and was no more) (Gen 5:24) and Elijah - brought up to heaven in a chariot (2 kings 2:11)?
Blessings,
Brian
RESPONSE:Ah, good one! No, it’s fairly certain that St. John didn’t pull a Methusalah and live til the 5th century. What does that prove. There were many writings that were written under a different name. It wasn’t frowned upon during this time.
… and THAT has nothing to do with the point. Many writings back then, pre-Incarnation and post-Incarnation were written under a famous psuedonymn. It had little or nothing to do with whether the writings were historical or non, enlightening or not. That’s the point of using the writings of St. John from the 4th century.RESPONSE:
There is "history" when something actually happened, and there in "non-history" (fiction, allegory, midrush, etc) when it did not. The Bible contains a lot of both. You have to learn to tell the difference.
I see - I do not take the bible as fiction - if you do, then I understand your perspective, of course (though disagree with it - as would the teaching of the Catholic Church (and many protestant denominations).RESPONSE:
Great fiction! Don’t you think?
RESPONSE:… and THAT has nothing to do with the point. Many writings back then, pre-Incarnation and post-Incarnation were written under a famous psuedonymn. It had little or nothing to do with whether the writings were historical or non, enlightening or not. That’s the point of using the writings of St. John from the 4th century.
Take for instance, the Proto-Evangelium of James, written mid 2nd century. It reflected the Christian traditions although it wasn’t written by James.
RESPONSE:I see - I do not take the bible as fiction - if you do, then I understand your perspective, of course (though disagree with it - as would the teaching of the Catholic Church (and many protestant denominations).
Blessings,
Brian
Ezekiel (37) may have been literal, or may have been a vision - that’s not entirely clear from the context - but also is a prophetic image of Israel coming back to faith in the end times.RESPONSE:
Lets take a look.
Ezechial 27:1:14:
" The hand of the LORD came upon me, and he led me out in the spirit of the LORD and set me in the center of the plain, which was now filled with bones. He made me walk among them in every direction so that I saw how many they were on the surface of the plain. How dry they were! He asked me: Son of man, can these bones come to life? “Lord GOD,” I answered, “you alone know that.” Then he said to me: Prophesy over these bones, and say to them: Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: See! I will bring spirit into you, that you may come to life. I will put sinews upon you, make flesh grow over you, cover you with skin, and put spirit in you so that you may come to life and know that I am the LORD. I prophesied as I had been told, and even as I was prophesying I heard a noise; **it was a rattling as the bones came together, bone joining bone. I saw the sinews and the flesh come upon them, and the skin cover them, but there was no spirit in them. **Then he said to me: Prophesy to the spirit, prophesy, son of man, and say to the spirit: Thus says the Lord GOD: From the four winds come, O spirit, and breathe into these slain that they may come to life. I prophesied as he told me, and the spirit came into them; they came alive and stood upright, a vast army. "(NAB)
Did it really happen and was history or not happen and was fiction?
What about this one?
Matthew 27:50-53
" But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,
tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, **they entered the holy city and appeared to many. **" (NAB)
Did it really happen and was history or not happen and was fiction?
RESPONSE… and THAT has nothing to do with the point. Many writings back then, pre-Incarnation and post-Incarnation were written under a famous psuedonymn. It had little or nothing to do with whether the writings were historical or non, enlightening or not. That’s the point of using the writings of St. John from the 4th century.
Take for instance, the Proto-Evangelium of James, written mid 2nd century. It reflected the Christian traditions although it wasn’t written by James.
Have you ever compared the vastly differing accounts? Is that what you are accustomed to finding in a historical writing?Ezekiel (37) may have been literal, or may have been a vision - that’s not entirely clear from the context - but also is a prophetic image of Israel coming back to faith in the end times.
Matthew resurrection - Yes, I believe this is literal.
Do you believe in a literal resurrection of Chirst or is that fiction to you? (Not judging - just would like to understand where you are coming from and how far “fiction” goes for you).
Blessings,
Brian
According to whom? I certainly wouldn’t blanket label it as “folklore.” There are a number of ECFs that echo multiple sentiments expressed in the Protoevangelium of James. I recommend Luigi Gambero’s Mary and the Fathers of the Church for a thorough treatment.No. It reflected the Christian folklore of about 150 AD.
Thanks but no thanks. The implication of your response is that you do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that is your belief, I respect that - but why then do you identify yourself as “Catholic”?Have you ever compared the vastly differing accounts? Is that what you are accustomed to finding in a historical writing?
Someone is addressing that very question on Beliefnet and doing a good job. You don’t have to be a member. Just search under Beliefnet Catholicism Debate.
JPM
RESPONSE:Ezekiel (37) may have been literal, or may have been a vision - that’s not entirely clear from the context - but also is a prophetic image of Israel coming back to faith in the end times.
Matthew resurrection - Yes, I believe this is literal.
Do you believe in a literal resurrection of Chirst or is that fiction to you? (Not judging - just would like to understand where you are coming from and how far “fiction” goes for you).
Blessings,
Brian
RESPONSE:According to whom? I certainly wouldn’t blanket label it as “folklore.” There are a number of ECFs that echo multiple sentiments expressed in the Protoevangelium of James. I recommend Luigi Gambero’s Mary and the Fathers of the Church for a thorough treatment.
I can get you ECFs echoing stuff in the Protoevangelium if I need to, but you can browse the book yourself. If modern “plausibility” is your criteria for identifying things of God, then you probably DO reject the Resurrection since people who are dead and rising 3 days later “hardly sounds like an accurate historical account, does it.”RESPONSE:
I have no idea which ECF’s you are refering to without naming, but an account which has a dove fly out of Joesph’s staff and land on his head marking him as the man to marry Mary, Mary’s hyman remaining intact during the birth, a mountain opening up and hiding Elizabeth and John, a angel feeding Mary during her childhood and her abondonment by her parents when she was three hardly sound like an accurate historical account, do they.
RESPONSE:According to whom? I certainly wouldn’t blanket label it as “folklore.” There are a number of ECFs that echo multiple sentiments expressed in the Protoevangelium of James. I recommend Luigi Gambero’s Mary and the Fathers of the Church for a thorough treatment.
JP, I’m curious. Do you believe that all the stories of Exodus happened? Did Moses really part the water? Did the ground swallow up Korah and his rebellious fellows? Did the Levites slay 3000 fellow Israelites?RESPONSE:
According to Mr Merriam and Mr. Webster.
Folklore is:
1 : traditional customs, tales, sayings, dances, or art forms preserved among a people
2 : a branch of knowledge that deals with folklore
3 : an often unsupported notion, story, or saying that is widely circulated
Lets look at the historical truth of the Protoevangelium of James (well, not actually James)
2."…and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a** dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph’s head."**
- "And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received** food from the hand of an angel**.
3 "And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, **my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. **
Do you really believe this is historical, ie really happened?
- "Elizabeth, groaning with a loud voice, says: O mountain of God, receive mother and child.** And immediately the mountain was cleft, and received her.** And a light shone about them, for an angel of the Lord was with them, watching over them.
And by all means provide the names of the Early Church Fathers who specifically claimed this is all true. If you can.