The Fall of mankind: inevitable part of God’s plan or unexplainable mystery of faith?

[Abu]

clem456 #116
Not true Abu. You should be specific so we know what you are referring to.

On the contrary. Many are unaware of how Fr Brown has distorted Catholic teaching.

**RE: Raymond Brown for Justin!
Question from Edward Pothier on 12/12/2001:
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 12/12/2001: **
"An assumption regarding error on the part of ChrIst – the Word of God Incarnate – is philosophically and theologically untenable and unacceptable. An assumption of error on the part of Sacred Scripture is heresy. Father Brown subscribed to both. These and other wrong assumptions color and cast a pall of suspicion upon much of his work, in my view. The issue is not whether Fr. Brown has the personal favor or esteem of certain Churchmen but the principals that guided his work.

“And I am not convinced that Cardinal Ratzinger was such an enthusiast with regards to Fr. Brown. The Cardinal has taken issue with the application of the historical-critical method as practiced today, and has criticized modern biblical scholars in general for failing to objectively assess their own biblical methodology for validity.
God bless, Edward
Father Echert”
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=338948

 

[clem456]

On the contrary. Many are unaware of how Fr Brown has distorted Catholic teaching.

**RE: Raymond Brown for Justin!
Question from Edward Pothier on 12/12/2001:
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 12/12/2001: **
"An assumption regarding error on the part of ChrIst – the Word of God Incarnate – is philosophically and theologically untenable and unacceptable. An assumption of error on the part of Sacred Scripture is heresy. Father Brown subscribed to both. These and other wrong assumptions color and cast a pall of suspicion upon much of his work, in my view. The issue is not whether Fr. Brown has the personal favor or esteem of certain Churchmen but the principals that guided his work.

“And I am not convinced that Cardinal Ratzinger was such an enthusiast with regards to Fr. Brown. The Cardinal has taken issue with the application of the historical-critical method as practiced today, and has criticized modern biblical scholars in general for failing to objectively assess their own biblical methodology for validity.
God bless, Edward
Father Echert”
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=338948

Not sure if you realize it, but the Q&A you reference shows just how thin the criticism against him, and how narrowly it is located in traditionalist quarters.
Several paragraphs with facts supporting his respected position are followed by a curt accusation of heresy without backup.


Might be a good topic for another thread as we are derailing this one.

 

[Abu]

clem456 #120
Not sure if you realize it, but the Q&A you reference shows just how thin the criticism against him, and how narrowly it is located in traditionalist quarters.
Several paragraphs with facts supporting his respected position are followed by a curt accusation of heresy without backup.

Fr John Echert is a giant and knows his Sacred Scripture. But he is not the only one.

**Question on 01-07-2002: **
Has there ever been a Vatican response to any of the writings of Father Raymond Brown? Was he the first theologian to propose that the bible is infallible only in issues relating to salvation?
Some of his statements about the infancy narratives (dubious history), ever-virgin Mary (was she really), etc. seem to be on the fringe of orthodoxy.

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 01-07-2002: (EWTN)
Very much on the fringe! No, Father Brown, though quite clearly a Modernist, was never condemned, perhaps partly because of his (in my opinion, undeserved) reputation as a Scripture scholar. Hans Kung, who was condemned, took essentially the same position as Father Brown on infallibility and the inerrancy of the Bible. - Dr. Carroll

 

[clem456]

Fr John Echert is a giant and knows his Sacred Scripture. But he is not the only one.

**Question on 01-07-2002: **
Has there ever been a Vatican response to any of the writings of Father Raymond Brown? Was he the first theologian to propose that the bible is infallible only in issues relating to salvation?
Some of his statements about the infancy narratives (dubious history), ever-virgin Mary (was she really), etc. seem to be on the fringe of orthodoxy.

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 01-07-2002: (EWTN)
Very much on the fringe! No, Father Brown, though quite clearly a Modernist, was never condemned, perhaps partly because of his (in my opinion, undeserved) reputation as a Scripture scholar. Hans Kung, who was condemned, took essentially the same position as Father Brown on infallibility and the inerrancy of the Bible. - Dr. Carroll

So he’s worthy of condemnation by association. Are you saying that Ray Brown does not accept the inerrancy of Scripture, or doesn’t accept the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium?
Still you have not produced specific critique/response. What exactly are you claiming specifically?
This guy ^^^ simply calls him names and impugns his reputation with no specifics whatsoever. Seems like a sin to me, but what do I know.

He has a really solid reputation among regular guys in the Catholic Church, including Popes.
should start a new thread

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Good Morning Lily!

Theologians aren’t apologists?

ignatiusinsight.com/features/ceo_apologetics_oct04.asp

All theologians aim to make faith more understandable, to clear up contradictions and/or update doctrine given new revelations from scripture or nature, correct?

And in so doing, they promote the faith. When people point to contradictions in the faith, and our answer is “Mystery”, it does not have near the weight of a well-constructed explanation.

Maybe I should have said, “They are more than apologists.” I don’t call theologians apologists because sometimes the conclusions they come to are not consistent with current Church teaching, which doesn’t necessarily make them bad or wrong. Take St. Anselm, for example.

And good evening to you, One Sheep!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

So he’s worthy of condemnation by association. Are you saying that Ray Brown does not accept the inerrancy of Scripture, or doesn’t accept the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium?
Still you have not produced specific critique/response. What exactly are you claiming specifically?
This guy ^^^ simply calls him names and impugns his reputation with no specifics whatsoever. Seems like a sin to me, but what do I know.

He has a really solid reputation among regular guys in the Catholic Church, including Popes.
should start a new thread

The main controversy surrounding Raymond Brown is his questioning of whether or not the nativity narratives are inerrant. He didn’t say they are not, but he did question them, and to me, that is the job of a theologian. He did say that he accepts the teaching of the Catholic Church. Still, one can question. If no one ever questioned, we would never learn.

He was greatly respected by almost all of the clergy: priests, bishops, popes. Pope Benedict XVI liked him, and Benedict is a very conservative theologian.

I have not read a lot of Raymond Brown’s books, but we did use one in our Christology class that I find very informative. It carries the Nihill Obstat and the Imprimatur.

 

[adrift]

So he’s worthy of condemnation by association. Are you saying that Ray Brown does not accept the inerrancy of Scripture, or doesn’t accept the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium?
Still you have not produced specific critique/response. What exactly are you claiming specifically?
This guy ^^^ simply calls him names and impugns his reputation with no specifics whatsoever. Seems like a sin to me, but what do I know.

He has a really solid reputation among regular guys in the Catholic Church, including Popes.
should start a new thread

Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown’s Theories

Scripture scholar Fr. Gilsdorf, whose excellent two-part series in The Wanderer some years ago commenting on Fr. Brown’s book, 101 Questions on the Bible, debunked many of Brown’s theories, including his concept of “an ignorant Jesus,” urges that before reading Fr. Brown, Catholics should forearm themselves by an open-minded reading of orthodox critics of Brown.

“Begin with Msgr. Kelly, then Cardinal Shehan, Fr. Miguens, Fr. Most, and Fr. Laurentin,” Fr. Gilsdorf says.

Concerning Fr. Brown, Fr. Gilsdorf asked these telling questions: “Is Fr. Brown right? How much can we rely on his teaching? Are his claims to orthodoxy valid? Is he a safe guide, or, as I would judge, a major contribution to the befogged wasteland of an ‘American Church,’ progressively alienated from its divinely constituted center?”

 

[Abu]

Adrift #125
Those are the facts by those who really are faithful.

Great stuff.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Adrift #125
Those are the facts by those who really are faithful.

Great stuff.

I think Fr. Brown is in good company! Jesus, a Jew, was rejected by the Jews. When he began his ministry, even his family felt he had lost his mind with his ideas.

Those who feel their faith is weak didn’t like Fr. Brown. Those with a strong faith did. From the same article:

"While Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., and others were effusive in their praise of the late modernist Scripture scholar Fr. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., for pre-eminence in his field, it’s a matter of record that traditional Catholic biblical scholars have always presented a far different perspective on him.

Fr. Brown, author of 25 full-length books on the Bible and professor emeritus at the Protestant Union Theological Seminary where he taught for 23 years, died August 8th at age 70. Cardinal Mahony hailed him as “the most distinguished and renowned Catholic biblical scholar to emerge in this country ever” and his death, the cardinal said, was “a great loss to the Church.”

Those of faith should read Raymond Brown’s works. I agree; those whose faith is shaky probably should not, but then again the books I own written by Fr. Brown carry the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, so there can’t be anything that goes against the Magisterium in them.

For our non-Catholic friends, the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur mean the books are free of any doctrinal or moral error. Fr. Brown’s writing may not be for everyone, but it is faithful to the Catholic Church, and yes, I checked the books to make sure they carried what I said they did.

So, I would recommend them to anyone. Theologians have always disagreed, it’s nothing new.

 

[OneSheep]

Oops! Did I give the impression that God does not hold people accountable for sin? We know what that “accountability” looked like from the cross. Jesus saw; Jesus forgave. Certainly we are held accountable, but what I am pointing to is what does that “holding accountable” look like? Does God’s face begin with a look of disappointment, condemnation? Or has God already forgiven, and his face shows understanding and mercy? What I am saying is that both of these views are legitimate.

What makes sense is that we inherit the capacity to do harm from our parents; hey, its genetic. If the capacity is part of a punishment, though, that view is difficult to comprehend in light of a benevolent Father who wills communion, which I think is part of the underlying question of this thread.

I am still wondering if Lonergan would say that we “contract punishment” from God. For that matter also, is “original sin” such a contract? We humans depend (more or less) on punishment for behavior modification, at least it is in our nature to do so; we contract debt (punishment) from each other. However, does God? It is quite natural to believe so, but that is not what happened from the cross. Try this question: does omniscience preclude sense of debt? In other words, when you know that someone is going to make an error, and you understand and can relate to the innocence of the action, do you hold it against him when he does it, or do you immediately forgive because you essentially have already forgiven?

So, back to the aim of this thread, is the Fall an “unexplainable mystery of faith”, or do we have an explanation?

Did God create us knowing that we would fall, and then proceeded to punish us because such punishment is just; that banishment, increased pain in childbirth, and death is just? Did our misdeeds incur a debt, and He sent his Son to erase the debt from such evils committed?

Or, did God create us knowing that we would conceive a distorted view of Him (due to our functional nature) and then sent His Son to clear up the distortion when the time was right? Did God always forgive us, Adam included, and not punish us with death, etc, “concupiscence” or anything that would make us more likely to do evil or not enjoy full relationship with Him?

Both of these are explanations. Both are legitimate, are they not?

 

[clem456]

Adrift #125
Those are the facts by those who really are faithful.

Great stuff.

It’s important to remember that theology is not apologetics. The fields are of course related, but their aim is not the same. One seeks to explore, the other seeks to affirm what is proclaimed. Theology can also do that, but by it’s nature it goes out to the boundaries in search of fuller understanding.

Any science that does not go to the boundaries in search of wider truth is not worth pursuing as science. All theologians do this without exception. John Paul 2 for instance expands the understanding of Scripture and Church teaching in so many ways.

The fact that a theologian explores material and hypothesis at the boundaries does not mean he is unfaithful to the Church.
He is merely doing his job. The fact that the theologian explores all the facets of an issue does mean he proposes for our belief something contradictory to established Church teaching. A good theologian would know he is not the Magisterium. It seems to me Ray Brown knew this, and let Peter be Peter. And Peter let Ray Brown be Ray Brown.

That fact that people somehow believe the faith is threatened by exploration says more about the strength of their faith than about the orthodoxy of the theologian. Even theologians generally considered orthodox have their fearful critics, who believe the Church is not durable enough to withstand open minded study.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It’s important to remember that theology is not apologetics. The fields are of course related, but their aim is not the same. One seeks to explore, the other seeks to affirm what is proclaimed. Theology can also do that, but by it’s nature it goes out to the boundaries in search of fuller understanding.

Any science that does not go to the boundaries in search of wider truth is not worth pursuing as science. All theologians do this without exception. John Paul 2 for instance expands the understanding of Scripture and Church teaching in so many ways.

The fact that a theologian explores material and hypothesis at the boundaries does not mean he is unfaithful to the Church.
He is merely doing his job. The fact that the theologian explores all the facets of an issue does mean he proposes for our belief something contradictory to established Church teaching. A good theologian would know he is not the Magisterium. It seems to me Ray Brown knew this, and let Peter be Peter. And Peter let Ray Brown be Ray Brown.

That fact that people somehow believe the faith is threatened by exploration says more about the strength of their faith than about the orthodoxy of the theologian. Even theologians generally considered orthodox have their fearful critics, who believe the Church is not durable enough to withstand open minded study.

Wonderful post! And hooray for someone who knows the difference between a theologian and an apologist!

 

[clem456]

Some food for thought:
catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-an-apologist-and-a-theologian
newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm

Apologetics thus leads up to Catholic faith, to the acceptance of the Catholic Church as the divinely authorized organ for preserving and rendering efficacious the saving truths revealed by Christ. This is the great fundamental dogma on which all other dogmas rest. Hence apologetics also goes by the name of “fundamental theology”. Apologetics is generally viewed as one branch of dogmatic science, the other and chief branch being dogmatic theology proper. It is well to note, however, that in point of view and method also they are quite distinct. Dogmatic theology, like moral theology, addresses itself primarily to those who are already Catholic. It presupposes faith. Apologetics, on the other hand, in theory at least, simply leads up to faith. The former begins where the latter ends. Apologetics is pre-eminently a positive, historical discipline, whereas dogmatic theology is rather philosophic and deductive, using as its premises data of divine and ecclesiastical authority — the contents of revelation and their interpretation by the Church. It is only in exploring and in treating dogmatically the elements of natural religion, the sources of its authoritative data, that dogmatic theology comes in touch with apologetics.

As has been pointed out, the object of apologetics is to give a scientific answer to the question, Why should I be Catholic?

Before a man is condemned, it ought to be know what his area of competence and study is, what he is proposing, for what purpose, to what aim, to what degree of belief.
And I think the Church is well capable of making those determinations.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Some food for thought:
catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-an-apologist-and-a-theologian
newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm

Before a man is condemned, it ought to be know what his area of competence and study is, what he is proposing, for what purpose, to what aim, to what degree of belief.
And I think the Church is well capable of making those determinations.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about fundamental moral theology and special moral theology. I agree that apologetics is fundamental moral theology, but apologetics is not special moral theology. That realm belongs to those trained in theology.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I think Fr. Brown is in good company! Jesus, a Jew, was rejected by the Jews. When he began his ministry, even his family felt he had lost his mind with his ideas.

Those who feel their faith is weak didn’t like Fr. Brown. Those with a strong faith did. From the same article:

"While Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., and others were effusive in their praise of the late modernist Scripture scholar Fr. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., for pre-eminence in his field, it’s a matter of record that traditional Catholic biblical scholars have always presented a far different perspective on him.

Fr. Brown, author of 25 full-length books on the Bible and professor emeritus at the Protestant Union Theological Seminary where he taught for 23 years, died August 8th at age 70. Cardinal Mahony hailed him as “the most distinguished and renowned Catholic biblical scholar to emerge in this country ever” and his death, the cardinal said, was “a great loss to the Church.”

Those of faith should read Raymond Brown’s works. I agree; those whose faith is shaky probably should not, but then again the books I own written by Fr. Brown carry the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, so there can’t be anything that goes against the Magisterium in them.

For our non-Catholic friends, the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur mean the books are free of any doctrinal or moral error. Fr. Brown’s writing may not be for everyone, but it is faithful to the Catholic Church, and yes, I checked the books to make sure they carried what I said they did.

So, I would recommend them to anyone. Theologians have always disagreed, it’s nothing new.

Question for you:

How can you understand that the birth narratives are fabrications but still believe the New Testament reflects reality? Seeing the infancy narratives as contradictory fabrications totally unsupported by corroborating documentary evidence was the beginning of the end for my faith as a Christian.

I see the New Testament as a reflection of the theological opinions of the “winners” at the time the bible was compiled. It’s a consensus document put together by people who were not there and never knew any of the main characters personally. I just can’t trust it to tell me the truth, especially about something so outrageous and radical!

**this is just my opinion, that’s all. I’m not trying to argue that the infancy narratives are certainly fabricated, that is my opinion based on reading some small amount of scholarship.

 

[clem456]

Question for you:

How can you understand that the birth narratives are fabrications but still believe the New Testament reflects reality? Seeing the infancy narratives as contradictory fabrications totally unsupported by corroborating documentary evidence was the beginning of the end for my faith as a Christian.

Question:
Do you believe that it is important to be forgiving of one another’s faults, to take the first step in reconciling with others? Is the power of that forgiveness a reality to you?

The parable of the prodigal son is a powerful statement of this, yet the parable of the prodigal son is not factual. There is no historical documentation for it.

You should not base your faith on the historicity of the bible, because you can never prove any of it definitively. Some events are more corroborated than others, but a skeptic will never be satisfied. The bible requires faith to expose the full truth in it. That is the whole point of it.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Question:
Do you believe that it is important to be forgiving of one another’s faults, to take the first step in reconciling with others? Is the power of that forgiveness a reality to you?

The parable of the prodigal son is a powerful statement of this, yet the parable of the prodigal son is not factual. There is no historical documentation for it.

You should not base your faith on the historicity of the bible, because you can never prove any of it definitively. Some events are more corroborated than others, but a skeptic will never be satisfied. The bible requires faith to expose the full truth in it. That is the whole point of it.

Yes I think forgiveness is a good thing! I have many reasons to think this.

To me, it seems like the parable of the prodigal son is designed to show that God is very generous and forgiving. There is no way to falsify or verify this opinion, so I guess it does what it is designed to do. Whether or not it actually happened doesn’t seem to matter too much, since it is an extended metaphor and not a description of historical reality.

The infancy narratives are designed to prove that Jesus was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies and also the divine son of God. They make explicit appeal to historical facts which we know are incorrect. Therefore, they fail to do what they’re designed to do. To me, it calls into question the reliability of the author.

 

[clem456]

Yes I think forgiveness is a good thing! I have many reasons to think this.

To me, it seems like the parable of the prodigal son is designed to show that God is very generous and forgiving. There is no way to falsify or verify this opinion, so I guess it does what it is designed to do. Whether or not it actually happened doesn’t seem to matter too much, since it is an extended metaphor and not a description of historical reality.

The infancy narratives are designed to prove that Jesus was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies and also the divine son of God. They make explicit appeal to historical facts which we know are incorrect. Therefore, they fail to do what they’re designed to do. To me, it calls into question the reliability of the author.

So an article of faith depends on the strict historicity of scripture?
Two authors having varying accounts of the same events is nothing new.
Two people cannot hear a story on one side of the street and repeat it verbatim on the other side. So? That doesn’t mean two people can’t convey the truth. Do you see the problem with your insistence on strict historicity?

You have to wonder, if 3 or 4 people were going to construct a fairy tale, why in the hell would they make such transparent blunders in agreement?
That would be a really dumb way to deceive people.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Question for you:

How can you understand that the birth narratives are fabrications but still believe the New Testament reflects reality? Seeing the infancy narratives as contradictory fabrications totally unsupported by corroborating documentary evidence was the beginning of the end for my faith as a Christian.

I see the New Testament as a reflection of the theological opinions of the “winners” at the time the bible was compiled. It’s a consensus document put together by people who were not there and never knew any of the main characters personally. I just can’t trust it to tell me the truth, especially about something so outrageous and radical!

**this is just my opinion, that’s all. I’m not trying to argue that the infancy narratives are certainly fabricated, that is my opinion based on reading some small amount of scholarship.

Well, I’ll admit, I’m far more partial to the gospels of Mark and John than Matthew and Luke.

The Bible was never meant to be a history book. I don’t think many people believe Jonah spent time in the belly of a fish or that it took days to walk across Nineveh.

Biblical scholars agree that Mark’s gospel was the first one written. Notice it contains no nativity story. I think the early Church was focused on the Resurrection because unless the Resurrection did occur, Christianity is a sham. As time went on, however, I think people became more and more interested in the earthly life of Christ. They wanted to know more about him. And I believed members of the early Church began to comb through the Hebrew Scriptures looking for prophecies of the Messiah. They came upon the one in Micah that said the Messiah would be born in the City of David, i.e. Bethlehem. So, Matthew and Luke, in my opinion, performed some literary acrobatics to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. There was no known tax at the time of Jesus’ birth, and had there been,. people paid the tax where they lived, not where they were born. And even if they had to pay where they were born, only Joseph would have had to go, not Mary. It’s not believable that a heavily pregnant Mary would have traveled about 100 miles across the desert, which abounded with thieves at night, when she was so close to giving birth to the Son of God. I am not trying to change anyone’s opinion, but I, personally, believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth. John’s gospel, and John was part of Christ’s inner circle, was written last. John, like Mark, includes no nativity.

In the end, I don’t think it matters where Jesus was born. What matters is whether or not he was resurrected from the dead, and I definitely believe he was. Nothing else can account for the changed life of the apostles. After Christ’s arrest, they hid in fear, afraid that they, too, would be arrested and crucified. Only John stood at the foot of the Cross. After the Resurrection, however, the apostles traveled and proclaimed the gospel to all who would listen, and with the exception of John, they were martyred. Why would they be martyred for a lie? They made no money. They were persecuted. Nothing of personal good came to them from their preaching.

If they had made up the Resurrection, they would have done a better job of it. Why have a Savior of the world who was so afraid he sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane? Why have the women be the first to discover that Jesus had been raised? Women had no more standing in first century Palestine than slaves.

There is a book that might clear up some things for you, and please know I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, either. The book, if you are interested, is The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright.

I believe the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and morals, but not history or science, etc. I don’t expect any nativity displays to change, either. In the end, Bethlehem is the only data we have, so we might as well conduct our Christmas pageants and carols around that.

Note: I don’t want to get into an argument with anyone about this, no matter what their opinion. I respect other opinions, and we’ve discussed this before. I believe everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on this matter.

 

[Abu]

Lily Bernans #127
the books I own written by Fr. Brown carry the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, so there can’t be anything that goes against the Magisterium in them.

False.

**Imprimi potest (EWTN)
Question from on 03-17-2002: **
Dr Geraghty, You recently answered a question about the meaning of imprimatur and nihil obstat. I’m reading a book called “Understanding Difficult Scriptures in a Healing Way” by Linn et al. Unfortunately, this book praises the likes of Karl Rahner, Raymond Brown, Richard McBrien and others. The book is published by Paulist Press, and I looked for an imprimatur. All I could find was an “Imprimi potest” by D. Edward Mathie, S.J… Is this something different?

**Answer by Richard Geraghty on 03-20-2002: **
“Dear D.B.
Good point. It seems that the Bishops have not been very careful about to whom they give the permission to print. So it has happened that Rome sometimes forces a Bishop to withdraw his approval of a certain book. The Imprimi potest means: this can be printed. Unfortunately, however, this guarantee of doctrinal purity is not always sound.”

The reliance on Raymond Brown and those who think like him is exemplified in these sorts of puerile suppositions:

The “ignorance” and “error” of Christ
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 12-29-2001 (EWTN):
‘The late Fr. Raymond Brown was convinced of ignorance and error on the part of Jesus Christ and the Sacred Scriptures. Here follows a small sampling of texts taken from Fr. Brown’s own works. **To these texts could be added many more. **I leave it to the reader to decide in the case of Fr. Brown, but personally, **I find some of his operating principals and assumptions unacceptable, which puts at risk much of what he has written. ** [My emphasis]

"The New Testament gives us no reason to think that Jesus and Paul were not deadly serious about the demonic world…I do not believe the demons inhabit desert places or the upper air, as Jesus and Paul thought…I see no way to get around the difficulty except by saying that Jesus and Paul were wrong on this point. They accepted the beliefs of their times about demons, but those beliefs were superstitious.” (St. Anthony Messenger, May, 1971)

‘With regards to Jesus’ knowledge of the future life: “Perhaps he had nothing new to say about the afterlife other than emphasizing what was already known, that God would reward the good and punish the wicked” (“Jesus, God and Man”, 1967, 101)

With regards to Jesus’ Self-knowledge: “…the ability to express this in a communicable way had to be acquired gradually.” (“Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self-Consciousness of Christ” in “Theological Investigations”, 1966, 5)

‘With regards to Jesus’ knowledge of afterlife and the apocalypse: “…we cannot assume that Jesus shared our own sophistication on some of these questions. If Jesus speaks of heaven above the clouds…how can we be sure that he knew that it was not above the clouds?” (JGM 56)

‘Regarding Jesus’ prophetic knowledge of the destruction of the Temple: “Far from being a clear prophecy, this saying seems to have been an embarrassment in the Synoptic tradition: Jesus had spoken about the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple, but he had died without the Temple being destroyed or his rebuilding it. Luke omits the saying…Mk. Adds qualifications…Mt. reduces the prediction to a possibility…Jn. is giving us still another reinterpretation designed to remove the difficulty.” (JGM 63)

‘Regarding the time of the Coming of the Son of Man: “Since it is not reasonable to suppose that he [Jesus] knew about the Parousia but for some mysterious reason expressed himself obscurely, one is almost forced to take at face value the admission of Mark 13:32 that Jesus did not know…Is it totally inconceivable that, since Jesus did not know when the Parousia would occur, he tended to think and say that it would occur soon?” (JGM, 77-78)

‘Regarding Jesus’ knowledge of His own Divinity: “…when we ask whether during his ministry Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, knew that he was God, we are asking whether he identified himself and the Father – and, of course, he did not. Undoubtedly, some would wish to attribute to Jesus an anticipated understanding of the later broadness of the term ‘God’ (or, indeed, even expect him to speak in trinitarian terminology), but can serious scholars simply presume that Jesus could speak and think in the vocabulary and philosophy of later times?” (JGM 87).’

That is the sort of sophistry in which Fr Brown was steeped.