Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

[irenaeus1]

Since this thread seems to be totally hijacked now, lets try this:

I’ll write something simple I believe and you tell me why the church teaches it is heretical and dissident:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

There is no historical evidence, they are not mentioned in the other gospels, and they are in the well-known pattern of Jewish midrash. If you want to believe they are history, that is fine. If you don’t understand the points Matthew is making, that is not at all fine. Not being history does not alter the teaching.

From the Pontifical Biblical Commission - June 19, 1911
Concerning the Author, the Date, and the Historical Truth of the Gospel according to Matthew

VI: Do the facts that the aim of the author of the first Gospel is chiefly dogmatic and apologetic, namely, to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messias foretold by the prophets and born of the lineage of David, and that moreover in the arrangement of the facts and discourses which he narrates and reports, he does not always follow chronological order, justify the deduction that they ought not to be accepted as true? Or may it also be affirmed that the accounts of the deeds and discourses of Christ, which are read in that Gospel, underwent a certain alteration and adaptation under the influence of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the more mature condition of the Church and are consequently not in conformity with historical truth?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.

VII: In particular ought it to be held that there is no solid foundation to the opinions of those who call in doubt the historical authenticity of the first two chapters, in which an account is given of the genealogy and infancy of Christ, as also of certain passages of great dogmatic importance, such as are those which concern the primacy of Peter (16:17-19), the form of baptism entrusted to the Apostles together with the mission of preaching everywhere (28:19f), the Apostles’ profession of faith in the divinity of Christ (14:33), and other similar matters which are found in a special form in Matthew?
Answer: In the affirmative.

Keep in mind that at this time the PBC had authoritative weight behind it since it was part of the magisterium. This is no longer the case since 1971 when restructured by Pope Paul VI.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[flazor1]

Since this thread seems to be totally hijacked now, lets try this:

I’ll write something simple I believe and you tell me why the church teaches it is heretical and dissident:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

There is no historical evidence, they are not mentioned in the other gospels, and they are in the well-known pattern of Jewish midrash. If you want to believe they are history, that is fine. If you don’t understand the points Matthew is making, that is not at all fine. Not being history does not alter the teaching.

But you have not written something simple you believe, if you intend to challenge whether there is anything heretical or dissenting in it. You have to state a clear proposition. e.g., “I believe that Jesus Christ came down from heaven and was born of the Virgin Mary.”

Instead, you have written something you don’t believe, namely, that Matthew, and before that Luke, are not historical accounts of the birth of Jesus. Or are you proposing that “the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God” is the propositional dogma and doctrine the the Church has managed to cull from these passages in 2000 years?

 

[patg]

But you have not written something simple you believe, if you intend to challenge whether there is anything heretical or dissenting in it. You have to state a clear proposition. e.g., “I believe that Jesus Christ came down from heaven and was born of the Virgin Mary.”

Instead, you have written something you don’t believe, namely, that Matthew, and before that Luke, are not historical accounts of the birth of Jesus. Or are you proposing that “the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God” is the propositional dogma and doctrine the the Church has managed to cull from these passages in 2000 years?

I’ll try to be clearer - Let me try again:

I believe that:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

And yes, the phrase “*traditional Jewish Midrash created” *means just what it says - they are a specific literary genre which was not, to the Jewish reader of the time, meant to be literal history.

 

[patg]

Generically speaking, I stated, “Many things have been taught in parish programs that are heretical.”

You replied, “That may be true - but it certainly doesn’t hurt!”

I replied, “Heretical teachings being taught in parish programs doesn’t hurt?”
You replied, “Please, please, please name one thing I have said which you find to be heretical…”

This is independent of whether you hold a heretical position… I was curious as to your response that heretical teaching does not hurt anyone.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

Sorry, I never meant to imply that. You made 2 statements and I was not very clearly responding to only the first one. I’ll try again:

You said “That it has been taught in many parishes for many years does not make it correct.” I was trying to respond to this by saying that this observation does not hurt the validity of my argument - something being taught for many years could be a positive sign.

Then you said: “Many things have been taught in parish programs that are heretical.” I was not responding to this at all and I certainly agree with it.

 

[rpp]

I just wanted thos on this thread to know I am not ignoring you. However, I will be avoiding the “In the News” forums for a while. Nothing personal nor does it have anything to do with the topic here.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

**I’ll try to be clearer - Let me try again:

I believe that:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

And yes, the phrase “traditional Jewish Midrash created” means just what it says - they are a specific literary genre which was not, to the Jewish reader of the time, meant to be literal history.**

This is an interesting viewpoint, to be sure,
but the problem as I see it is that not one of the earliest Christian writers ever asserted such things. They presented the stories in the gospels as absolutely true, that they occured. These people lived closest to the time of the NT writers, and would surely have known if the writers had intended the gospels largely as fictional midrash.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[irenaeus1]

Damage? Like keeping people in the church because the scriptures finally make sense?

This is so untrue. Most of the people who leave the Church are not doing so because the scriptures do not make sense. Statistically speaking, most Catholics who leave the Church do so because they cannot accept certain of her teachings and either quit going to church altogether or join a more liberal denomination that is more aligned with their personal beliefs and morals. Others who leave the Catholic Church actually go to evangelical type churches (whether Baptist, Evangelical Free, Assembies of God, non-denominational, fundamentalist-types, etc.), which are not exactly liberal in their views on the Bible.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Maranatha]

I’ll try to be clearer - Let me try again:

I believe that:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

And yes, the phrase “*traditional Jewish Midrash created” *means just what it says - they are a specific literary genre which was not, to the Jewish reader of the time, meant to be literal history.

So, please correct me if I’m wrong, you don’t believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies concerning the Messiah. Do you believe that fulfilling these prophesies, in history, is a requirement for the Messiah?

 

[irenaeus1]

I’ll try to be clearer - Let me try again:

I believe that:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

And yes, the phrase “*traditional Jewish Midrash created” *means just what it says - they are a specific literary genre which was not, to the Jewish reader of the time, meant to be literal history.

Accept that the Church has never taught this, and you will not find this position in any official Church teaching. I know, I know… you can find it among some theologians, but then again, you can find all kinds of creative imaginings among some theologians. Thank goodness they are not the magisterium of the Church.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[flazor1]

I’ll try to be clearer - Let me try again:

I believe that:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

And yes, the phrase “*traditional Jewish Midrash created” *means just what it says - they are a specific literary genre which was not, to the Jewish reader of the time, meant to be literal history.

Then I’ll try be clearer, because just on general principles, I’m not interested in accusing you or anyone else of departing from church teaching, while, from an intellectual standpoint, I genuinely can’t figure out what you believe dogmatically, for example, whether or not you believe that God became Man in Jesus, Who was born of a Virgin, who was Mary, the wife of Joseph, which are all dogmatic teachings required of Catholics.

I suspect you don’t believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and became Man, because the statement itself is an historical proposition, the ONLY documentary basis for which are the synoptic gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke, which you have described as clearly fiction, infancy narratives, not historical, etc., etc.

I am at a loss to understand how the the theological truth, (although theological truths must always be reducible to yes or no propositions) that " Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God" could have any meaning in the first century, or the 21st, to anyone if it doesn’t rest on the foundation that such a person as Jesus was actually born, in history, and that the Church has a reliable source to account for some of the facts of His life.

The Church, through Piux X in his Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, condemned at least two errors which, possibly unfairly, I seem to recognize on your approach to the Scriptures:

**"12. If he wishes to apply himself usefuly to Biblical stidies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinons about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

1. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable to their readers."**

I believe the first error is in play because all of your comparisons to the literary devices you see in the Scripture are compared to purely earthly writers, without any regard to the former being of supernatural origin.

I believe the second applies because you have not stopped at merely describing the Evangelists as using symbolic language, which no one would argue with you about, but have gone on to say that the accounts themselves are fiction–but fiction serving some didactic purpose, as you say. In other words, they are falsehoods, but are profitable lessons for the readers.

 

[estesbob]

I’ll try to be clearer - Let me try again:

I believe that:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

And yes, the phrase “*traditional Jewish Midrash created” *means just what it says - they are a specific literary genre which was not, to the Jewish reader of the time, meant to be literal history.

How about the Ressurection? How about Christ dying on the Cross? Are these also traditional stories???

How do we tell which are true and which are not. Why didnt the Church fathers sort this out for us? Why did it take 2,000 years for us to find out that the New Testament was historically inacurate?

 

[flazor1]

If you are presenting to them, for example, that the virgin birth may not have been a historical event, then you are not presenting the teachings of the church. Many of these so-called brightest scholars continually insist that certain things are a matter of faith but not history, as if they are mutually exclusive. The problem is that God intervened into human history by bringing forth His Son by taking on Flesh in the womb of the Virgin without the agent of a man. Yes, this is an article of faith, but it took place in history.

Yes, and the false dichotomy between the Christ of faith and the Christ of history has been condemned. Pius X defined this error in his Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists in 1907:

**“It is permisible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith.” **

 

[irenaeus1]

I’ll try to be clearer - Let me try again:

I believe that:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

And yes, the phrase “*traditional Jewish Midrash created” *means just what it says - they are a specific literary genre which was not, to the Jewish reader of the time, meant to be literal history.

Why are just those two events considered by you to be traditional Jewish midrash - namely the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt? According to Matthew, these two events are said to have taken place and fulfill certain OT messianic prophecies. You state that Matthew made use of midrash… okay, so why stop at these two events in your consideration of their legendary status or lack of literal historicity? Is the virgin birth merely traditional Jewish midrash also? After all, the literary genre documenting the virgin birth is identical to that of the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt… Matthew states an event (the virgin birth), and then claims that it fulfills an OT messianic prophecy. Upon what criteria do you use to determine what Matthew is affirming when the literary genre does not change, but your method of interpretation does?

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[josethomas]

Cardinal Berton is right. I bring to the forelight the analysis made by one Indian theologian Nalupara, that there is nothing wrong in considering the apocryphal gospels as historically depicting the belief of some christian communities in the middle east. The analysis though thoroughly illogical is indiscriminatedly heretical, as no human fool will believe that a Christian community worth its name would have believed in a Gospel according to which Jesus Christ had sexual perversities with Mary Magdeline. The theologian for gaining support to his perverted ideas, convenietly forgot the church history which states that all the disciples of Jesus suffered and became martyrs for the cause of Chirst. If Jesus was a hyprocrite, whether the whole community of immediate disciples would have done in such manner, over a period of time. They had truly believed and accepted the precepts of Chist, including his precepts on chastity. Hence to hear from a Catholic theologician that Christ was not fully dedicated for the spreading of the kingdom of God and he remained totally in union with God, he himself being God, is totally pitiable. Further more such an article was published in a non christain weekly, in the special issue for Chrismas, intesperced with dubious pictures depicting Mary Magdeline keenly observing the sexual appearance of Jesus, is highly dangerous, heretical and requires admonition from all concerned who love Jesus a a bride would have loved the bridegroom. The article was published in the Chrismas special issue of Mathrubhoome weekely publised in a Malayalam language in India. It is totally inhuman and Judaic to make such stray and absurd allegations against our blessed redeemer, bereft of any logical backing and historical basis. The priest appeared to give credence to the book by Dan Brown. Deplorable indeed, apart from that what the poor liety would say.

 

[KathleenElsie]

IMHO it is not uncommon for people to read many many books and yet not understand the content.

If we take the term learned (someone that has been exposed to teaching) and the term ignorant (someone without knowledge) then we might understand the situation of many educated people.

To be ignorant is not a disgrace if you have never been taught. To have no understanding of things not taught is to be expected.

But to be “learned” without understanding is a self imposed ignorance and that is a shame and disgrace in my opinion.

Knowledge is free and a wonderful gift from God as is discernment of the information we are given.

 

[patg]

Why are just those two events considered by you to be traditional Jewish midrash - namely the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt? According to Matthew, these two events are said to have taken place and fulfill certain OT messianic prophecies. You state that Matthew made use of midrash… okay, so why stop at these two events in your consideration of their legendary status or lack of literal historicity? Is the virgin birth merely traditional Jewish midrash also? After all, the literary genre documenting the virgin birth is identical to that of the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt… Matthew states an event (the virgin birth), and then claims that it fulfills an OT messianic prophecy. Upon what criteria do you use to determine what Matthew is affirming when the literary genre does not change, but your method of interpretation does?

I was trying to keep things simple, but if you would rather, here is the bigger picture:

Scripture scholars believe that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives include a historical core – the information that the stories have in common – but they also contain many details that do not find their source in events but in the text of the scripture. The infancy narratives wind throughout their accounts of events scriptural images that cast light on the significance of events. This is to say that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives employ a teaching technique common in Jesus’ culture known as midrash.

Matthew and Luke’s contemporaries would have been familiar with the technique of using an Old Testament text to cast light on a contemporary situation. This is what is happening in the infancy narratives. Images from scripture are woven around the accounts of events in order to teach the significance of those events in the lives of the audience.

When a person who knows the Old Testament reads the infancy narratives, they realize that many of the details unique to each story have a familiar ring to them. In fact, they are Old Testament allusions added to the stories to teach the significance of the events being recounted. When one is able to bring these Old Testament allusions to bear on one’s understanding of the story, a whole new level of meaning opens up. Only by doing this can we understand the theological richness that Matthew and Luke have added to their accounts by their of midrash.

What is Matthew telling his audience when he includes in his infancy narrative the accounts of the star, the magi, Herod’s plot, the massacre of the babies, and the flight into Egypt? Each of these images recalls to the mind of Matthew’s largely Jewish audience something significant in their past. He organizes his gospel into five sections that reflect the Pentateuch, the five books of the old law. He pictures Jesus giving the new law on a mountain, just as Moses did. Everywhere in Matthews’s gospel we read of Jesus against the backdrop of the history of the Jewish people, for it is only against this backdrop that Jesus’ true identity can be understood by Matthew’s largely Jewish audience.

The images that Luke weaves into his account of Jesus’ birth are very different than those used by Matthew. Still, the intention behind the images is the same. By incorporating these images, Luke is helping his audience understand the significance of Jesus’ birth, a significance that was understood only in the light of the resurrection.

The knowledge of the infancy narrative form and a knowledge of how the infancy narratives use the midrash teaching device help us understand the depth of meaning found in Matthew’s and Luke’s infancy narratives. Without this knowledge we might miss Matthew’s keen perception of Jesus as the embodiment of the history of his people, especially as the new Moses, and we might miss Luke’s perception of Jesus as the God-man who has come to pasture his people. Only with an understanding of form, are we able to understand the deep meaning that is so simply and beautifully woven into Mathew’s and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth.

Is there a problem?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was trying to keep things simple, but if you would rather, here is the bigger picture:

Scripture scholars believe that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives include a historical core – the information that the stories have in common – but they also contain many details that do not find their source in events but in the text of the scripture. The infancy narratives wind throughout their accounts of events scriptural images that cast light on the significance of events. This is to say that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives employ a teaching technique common in Jesus’ culture known as midrash.

Matthew and Luke’s contemporaries would have been familiar with the technique of using an Old Testament text to cast light on a contemporary situation. This is what is happening in the infancy narratives. Images from scripture are woven around the accounts of events in order to teach the significance of those events in the lives of the audience.

When a person who knows the Old Testament reads the infancy narratives, they realize that many of the details unique to each story have a familiar ring to them. In fact, they are Old Testament allusions added to the stories to teach the significance of the events being recounted. When one is able to bring these Old Testament allusions to bear on one’s understanding of the story, a whole new level of meaning opens up. Only by doing this can we understand the theological richness that Matthew and Luke have added to their accounts by their of midrash.

What is Matthew telling his audience when he includes in his infancy narrative the accounts of the star, the magi, Herod’s plot, the massacre of the babies, and the flight into Egypt? Each of these images recalls to the mind of Matthew’s largely Jewish audience something significant in their past. He organizes his gospel into five sections that reflect the Pentateuch, the five books of the old law. He pictures Jesus giving the new law on a mountain, just as Moses did. Everywhere in Matthews’s gospel we read of Jesus against the backdrop of the history of the Jewish people, for it is only against this backdrop that Jesus’ true identity can be understood by Matthew’s largely Jewish audience.

The images that Luke weaves into his account of Jesus’ birth are very different than those used by Matthew. Still, the intention behind the images is the same. By incorporating these images, Luke is helping his audience understand the significance of Jesus’ birth, a significance that was understood only in the light of the resurrection.

The knowledge of the infancy narrative form and a knowledge of how the infancy narratives use the midrash teaching device help us understand the depth of meaning found in Matthew’s and Luke’s infancy narratives. Without this knowledge we might miss Matthew’s keen perception of Jesus as the embodiment of the history of his people, especially as the new Moses, and we might miss Luke’s perception of Jesus as the God-man who has come to pasture his people. Only with an understanding of form, are we able to understand the deep meaning that is so simply and beautifully woven into Mathew’s and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth.

Is there a problem?

++ Which is why Matthew applies to Jesus words which Hosea applied to Israel, God’s “son”: just as Hosea refers to the Exodus, Matthew sees the return from flight into Egypt as echoing the Exodus - for Jesus the Son of God does what Israel did. Jesus sums up & personifies Israel - which is why His Temptation in the wilderness echoes that of Israel in the desert (the Greek word in Matthew has both meanings) The NT is crammed with references to the Exodus

IOW, the way in which the Gospels are organised & written is a clue to their meaning. “Son of David” is not a title chosen for no reason - the use of it by the Evangelist is a clue to his meaning.

 

[fullofzeal]

I was trying to keep things simple, but if you would rather, here is the bigger picture:

Scripture scholars believe that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives include a historical core – the information that the stories have in common – but they also contain many details that do not find their source in events but in the text of the scripture. The infancy narratives wind throughout their accounts of events scriptural images that cast light on the significance of events. This is to say that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives employ a teaching technique common in Jesus’ culture known as midrash.

Matthew and Luke’s contemporaries would have been familiar with the technique of using an Old Testament text to cast light on a contemporary situation. This is what is happening in the infancy narratives. Images from scripture are woven around the accounts of events in order to teach the significance of those events in the lives of the audience.

When a person who knows the Old Testament reads the infancy narratives, they realize that many of the details unique to each story have a familiar ring to them. In fact, they are Old Testament allusions added to the stories to teach the significance of the events being recounted. When one is able to bring these Old Testament allusions to bear on one’s understanding of the story, a whole new level of meaning opens up. Only by doing this can we understand the theological richness that Matthew and Luke have added to their accounts by their of midrash.

What is Matthew telling his audience when he includes in his infancy narrative the accounts of the star, the magi, Herod’s plot, the massacre of the babies, and the flight into Egypt? Each of these images recalls to the mind of Matthew’s largely Jewish audience something significant in their past. He organizes his gospel into five sections that reflect the Pentateuch, the five books of the old law. He pictures Jesus giving the new law on a mountain, just as Moses did. Everywhere in Matthews’s gospel we read of Jesus against the backdrop of the history of the Jewish people, for it is only against this backdrop that Jesus’ true identity can be understood by Matthew’s largely Jewish audience.

The images that Luke weaves into his account of Jesus’ birth are very different than those used by Matthew. Still, the intention behind the images is the same. By incorporating these images, Luke is helping his audience understand the significance of Jesus’ birth, a significance that was understood only in the light of the resurrection.

The knowledge of the infancy narrative form and a knowledge of how the infancy narratives use the midrash teaching device help us understand the depth of meaning found in Matthew’s and Luke’s infancy narratives. Without this knowledge we might miss Matthew’s keen perception of Jesus as the embodiment of the history of his people, especially as the new Moses, and we might miss Luke’s perception of Jesus as the God-man who has come to pasture his people. Only with an understanding of form, are we able to understand the deep meaning that is so simply and beautifully woven into Mathew’s and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth.

Is there a problem?

Which scripture scholars do you name?

peace

 

[Riley259]

How very true. I worry more about people like Richard McBrien, James Carroll and places like the Paulist Center of Boston than I do about the Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris’s of the world.

 

[flazor1]

Yes, I see problems. First, both Irenaeus2 and I asked you to clarify what you are talking about when you use the word history. He asked you what your criteria are for determining that something is historical or not. I asked you point-blank if you do or don’t believe in one of the fundamental historical dogmas of the Church. (I also asked you to explain why Luke’s stated purpose was to write history, while you keep saying his actual object was to write symbolical fables). You didn’t reply to me at all.

In reply to Irenaeus, instead of answering his question, (which really would have been keeping it simple), you restated your original rationalization that “Scripture scholars believe that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives include a historical core,” but you haven’t identified a single event you believe is part of the historical core. The Virgin Birth? The Immaculate Conception?

Then, you pass over the historical core and say the infancy narratives “contain many details that do not find their source in events but in the text of the scripture.” In other words, the events didn’t happen (they weren’t events), they were merely borrowed from the scriptures, i.e., from early Jewish stories that also didn’t happen. The system is completely closed. God has managed to remain outside of history.

Third, you repeatedly state that the early writers employ these fables in order to cast light on the significance of the events, ignoring that if an event never took place, it can have no historical significance. David Copperfield, Ulysses, and Huck Finn have no significance outside of the invented literary world they inhabit, regardless of their depth of commentary on the human condition and current events. You have called the significance, “theological significance,” but it is clear now you don’t mean that a theologically significant event has to have any reality outside of the purely symbolical or literary.

Fourth, you said Luke’s weaving of imagery was to help “his audience understand the significance of Jesus’ birth, a significance that was understood only in the light of the resurrection.” But, as I said earlier, this contradicts Luke’s identification of his audience, the Greek, Theophilus, who would have had no interest in Jewish fables, especially from a Gentile writer like Luke. It also contradicts Luke’s stated purpose to Theophilus to provide him an historical orderly narrative of facts, not a poetical recap of the Old Testament and a study key to why the Incarnation is significant. And may I further suggest that until you have come to grips with whether or not Jesus was actually born of Mary in the first place, and how the Church can have any confidence in that, you are getting ahead of yourself to discuss the signficance of the Resurrection.

Moreover, neither Theophilus nor the believing Jews had any need to be told the significance of Jesus’ birth by the time the Gospels were written, as they had all professed faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, and suffered persecution for that profession. They knew the significance of his birth. What they needed was an account of the facts of his life from eyewitnesses.

Every student of the scriptures knows that the Gospels contain Old Testament imagery. It is a fact so commonplace it is a truism. But your scripture scholars have elevated that truism and applied it so there is nothing left of the New Testament but a nonhistorical poetical restatement of Old Testament stories, which, also, were nothing more than made-up stories.

Who would be martyred for that?