Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

[irenaeus1]

Is there a problem?

Yes, there is a problem. Flazor1 basically states what my first thought was when I read your supposed explanation. The most basic problem is that you did not at all answer the question. You simply gave a rhetorical response much the same way a politician would have answered a similar question. I don’t have a problem with Jesus fulfilling a situation such that he can be presented as the “New Moses,” but why couldn’t God have actually arranged it so that Jesus in actuality fulfilled them. I suppose the question is not only how do you know whether something is being presented as an historical event that fulfills an OT prophecy and a legendary event (by way of midrash) that fulfills an OT prophecy, but how do you know whether something is being presented as a legendary event (by way of midrash) that fulfills an OT prophecy and a cleverly devised fable?

But before youe answer that one, first answer this… simply please: do you believe that the Virgin Birth was an historical event? If so, what criteria are you using to determine from Matthew’s gospel that the virgin birth is not Jewish midrash since it follows the same literary form as the accounts of the Flight to Egypt and Massacre of the Innocents do?

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’m Catholic and I believe the bible and I’ll never apologized for doing so.

I also won’t apologize for believing that Jesus rose from the dead and that that is HISTORICAL FACT!

 

[patg]

The But before youe answer that one, first answer this… simply please: do you believe that the Virgin Birth was an historical event?

Absolutely not. It exists in the supernatural realm as a matter of faith totally outside the realm of human history and all that we define to be the rigorous science of history. We, of course, absolutely believe it to be true - but that belief is a result of faith and dogma and has nothing to do with history.

If so, what criteria are you using to determine from Matthew’s gospel that the virgin birth is not Jewish midrash since it follows the same literary form as the accounts of the Flight to Egypt and Massacre of the Innocents do?

We believe the virgin birth because the Church defines it as dogma, not because any historian tells us that it happened or because there is historical evidence that it happened. The accounts of the Flight to Egypt and Massacre of the Innocents are not defined as “must believe” dogmas or doctrines. They are also only described in a single gospel and, as you said, meet all the criteria for Jewish Midrash/Ancient Infancy Narrative.

 

[estesbob]

Absolutely not. It exists in the supernatural realm as a matter of faith totally outside the realm of human history and all that we define to be the rigorous science of history. We, of course, absolutely believe it to be true - but that belief is a result of faith and dogma and has nothing to do with history.

We believe the virgin birth because the Church defines it as dogma, not because any historian tells us that it happened or because there is historical evidence that it happened. The accounts of the Flight to Egypt and Massacre of the Innocents are not defined as “must believe” dogmas or doctrines. They are also only described in a single gospel and, as you said, meet all the criteria for Jewish Midrash/Ancient Infancy Narrative.

If the virgin Birth of Jesus is not a historical reality then our religion is a farce.

 

[rlg94086]

If the virgin Birth of Jesus is not a historical reality then our religion is a farce.

Bob,

Of course, the birth of Jesus is a historical reality. And, we believe that birth was a virgin birth. I think all that patg is saying is that historians can not and will not be able to verify that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth.

This seems to be common sense to me. Historians also will never be able to verify that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, Son of God, etc. All historians can say is that He was born and that “He suffered, died and was buried.” They can also verify what His followers believed and taught.

Everything else is historical fact based on our Faith, not on verifiable historical evidence.

God bless,

Robert

 

[flazor1]

Absolutely not. It exists in the supernatural realm as a matter of faith totally outside the realm of human history and all that we define to be the rigorous science of history. We, of course, absolutely believe it to be true - but that belief is a result of faith and dogma and has nothing to do with history.

At last. I don’t think you meant to engage me anyway, but others are reading, so I may as well respond. What you have just said, simplified, is that you absolutely do not believe in the historical basis of the virgin birth, and yet, you “of course, absolutely believe it to be true.” Regardless of your other beliefs about historical and supernatural truths (?), you have to admit this is quite a contradiction. How does one absolutely not believe something and absolutely believe it at the same time?

We believe the virgin birth because the Church defines it as dogma, not because any historian tells us that it happened or because there is historical evidence that it happened. The accounts of the Flight to Egypt and Massacre of the Innocents are not defined as “must believe” dogmas or doctrines.

You have an interesting way of shifting focus on the fly. Earlier in this thread we were all talking about the historicity of Luke, who explicitly explained that he was writing history and not telling fables, and suddenly you switched your focus to Matthew.

Now Irenaeus2, (and I,) challenged you about the dogma of the Virgin Birth, and you have now switched the focus to the dogmatic character (or lack thereof) of the Flight to Egypt and the Massacre of the Innocents, which were not the subject of the question.

Obviously the dogma of the Virgin Birth is dogmatic, because it is contained in ALL of the Church’s creeds. You yourself just said the Church has defined it as dogma, which means all Catholics must believe it. Yet you just said you absolutely don’t believe it, (and then that you absolutely do).

Do you really believe that more religious ed will help us to understand your point of view?

 

[estesbob]

Bob,

Of course, the birth of Jesus is a historical reality. And, we believe that birth was a virgin birth. I think all that patg is saying is that historians can not and will not be able to verify that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth.

This seems to be common sense to me. Historians also will never be able to verify that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, Son of God, etc. All historians can say is that He was born and that “He suffered, died and was buried.” They can also verify what His followers believed and taught.

Everything else is historical fact based on our Faith, not on verifiable historical evidence.

God bless,

Robert

I believe that is a distinctionn without a difference. If Jesus was Born of a Virgin that is a historialc fact regardless of whether it can be proven or not. it either happended or it didnt.

 

[rlg94086]

Really?

If there was no difference, then it would be taught as historical fact in public schools. Of course there is a difference!

The difference is a matter of our faith versus the branch of knowledge known as History. Historians are not allowed to claim something is fact without historical data to back it up. Where will they get historic data which proves Mary’s virginity?

Now, we can claim it was historic fact (i.e. it happened at that time in history), but this is not the same thing at all. We are basing our belief off of the teachings of the Church (including the biblical record, teachings of Church fathers, etc.).

I believe that is a distinctionn without a difference. If Jesus was Born of a Virgin that is a historialc fact regardless of whether it can be proven or not. it either happended or it didnt.

 

[estesbob]

Really?

If there was no difference, then it would be taught as historical fact in public schools. Of course there is a difference!

The difference is a matter of our faith versus the branch of knowledge known as History. Historians are not allowed to claim something is fact without historical data to back it up. Where will they get historic data which proves Mary’s virginity?

Now, we can claim it was historic fact (i.e. it happened at that time in history), but this is not the same thing at all. We are basing our belief off of the teachings of the Church (including the biblical record, teachings of Church fathers, etc.).

I repeat-it either happended or it did not. If it happened it is a historical fact regadless of whether one can prove it or not. if it didnt happen our religion is a sham.

 

[rlg94086]

I repeat-it either happended or it did not. If it happened it is a historical fact regadless of whether one can prove it or not. if it didnt happen our religion is a sham.

And how does that discount what I just wrote? Are you arguing that historians should discard the requirement of evidence to state things as “historical fact?”

 

[estesbob]

And how does that discount what I just wrote? Are you arguing that historians should discard the requirement of evidence to state things as “historical fact?”

No-I am saying if it happened it is a historical fact.

 

[rlg94086]

No-I am saying if it happened it is a historical fact.

Yes. And, if God exists, then He exists. So? That doesn’t mean a scientist can prove God exists. All patg said is that she believes in the virgin birth, but that it can’t be proven by historians.

If you disagree with her, then you are saying that historians can prove it to be true. I would certainly be more than interested in how you think they can prove it. I’m sure patg would as well.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, since when do historians “prove” anything?

Your average researcher might be able to dredge up facts like there “was” a census, or that there “was” a record of a bright star/comet/light. . .

but your historian?

He (or she) will not be dealing with mundane little things like facts. How medievel!

No, your historian will be telling us exactly what Herod, or Pilate, or Caiaphus, was really thinking. . .especially if what he was really thinking materially differs from any known (as in, written down or recorded) facts or actions!!!

Your historian of today plays by a different set of rules than simply presenting facts and figures and attempting to make them ‘come alive’. Your historian of today has a definite worldview and will quite cheerfully accommodate whatever facts are available that fit his worldview–and downplay or deny the ones that don’t.

Check the little blurbs on the major historians of the late 20th century and you’ll see them say, *themselves, * that this is what they are doing. I have. I did.

 

[patg]

No-I am saying if it happened it is a historical fact.

Ok, so use the standard tools of scholarly historical analysis and prove that it happened. This is a matter of faith and no matter how strongly and sincerely you believe it to be true, it is clearly outside the realm of human experience, and hence not part of history.

 

[rlg94086]

You are correct, but they also don’t teach that something like a virgin birth is an “historical fact.” They teach that Jesus was born and his followers believe it was a virgin birth. Or, that Jesus was born of a virgin according to the Bible.

Quite frankly, you and Bob are scaring me. Based on your reasoning, you should have no problem with the historians with a non-Catholic world view teaching that Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin. No need for any historical evidence, right? So, we have two historians teaching two different things and both are justified on claiming them as historical fact.

That’s great. Remind me not to attend any of your history lectures.

Actually, since when do historians “prove” anything?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Since I’m no professor, no need to worry. . .

But seriously, you’re apparently not getting the point.

Historians do not “prove” something existed. If something exists, it exists. Whether some body announces it, or knows of it, is immaterial to its actual existance.

Socrates would have understood this well. . .

 

[rlg94086]

I fully understand that. Obviously, you did not read my last post.

Since I’m no professor, no need to worry. . .

But seriously, you’re apparently not getting the point.

Historians do not “prove” something existed. If something exists, it exists. Whether some body announces it, or knows of it, is immaterial to its actual existance.

Socrates would have understood this well. . .

 

[patg]

At last. I don’t think you meant to engage me anyway, but others are reading, so I may as well respond. What you have just said, simplified, is that you absolutely do not believe in the historical basis of the virgin birth, and yet, you “of course, absolutely believe it to be true.” Regardless of your other beliefs about historical and supernatural truths (?), you have to admit this is quite a contradiction. How does one absolutely not believe something and absolutely believe it at the same time?

It is no contradiction whatsoever. There is a tremendous difference between historical truth and dogmatic truth. You should read Dei Verbum. There is a statement which directly addresses this: “*For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.” *The truth of the virgin birth is not a matter of history, cannot be addressed by history, and is based on no historical evidence. No one can logically say they believe in the virgin birth based on a historical analysis. They can (and must, if claiming to be Catholic) believe it on the dogmatic teaching.

You have an interesting way of shifting focus on the fly. Earlier in this thread we were all talking about the historicity of Luke, who explicitly explained that he was writing history and not telling fables, and suddenly you switched your focus to Matthew.

You ignored all the discussion I provided about the classic Infancy Narrative genre so evident in Luke and wouldn’t say why I was wrong so I moved to something I thought was simpler. I agree we should stick to one simple topic, so lets finish the virgin birth.

Now Irenaeus2, (and I,) challenged you about the dogma of the Virgin Birth, and you have now switched the focus to the dogmatic character (or lack thereof) of the Flight to Egypt and the Massacre of the Innocents, which were not the subject of the question.

Ok, I believe I have now answered the virgin birth questions.

Obviously the dogma of the Virgin Birth is dogmatic, because it is contained in ALL of the Church’s creeds. You yourself just said the Church has defined it as dogma, which means all Catholics must believe it.

Yes, that is what I said.

Yet you just said you absolutely don’t believe it, (and then that you absolutely do).

Please stop lying about what I said - I never said I did not believe it. It is absolutely not historically based or verifiable - why would that mean it it is not believable? There are many things we believe and yet can’t verify - the change of the water and wine into Jesus’ body and blood is certainly NOT verifiable and yet I bet you believe in that.

Do you really believe that more religious ed will help us to understand your point of view?

No, I don’t believe it would change your personal opinion at all.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I repeat-it either happended or it did not. If it happened it is a historical fact regadless of whether one can prove it or not. if it didnt happen our religion is a sham.

• • No.

1. It’s a fact
2. It happened
3. It is fundamental to faith in Christ

• but it’s not a fact of the historical order; that is, it did not happen within history in the same way as the Crucifixion, or the fire of Rome in 64 AD, any more the creation did: with which it has a lot in common; neither is a fact of the historical order, yet both it & the creation are realities. Not all real events are historical; but they are no less real as events for that.

I think you’ve been very well answered. ++

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You are correct, but they also don’t teach that something like a virgin birth is an “historical fact.” They teach that Jesus was born and his followers believe it was a virgin birth. Or, that Jesus was born of a virgin according to the Bible.

Quite frankly, you and Bob are scaring me. Based on your reasoning, you should have no problem with the historians with a non-Catholic world view teaching that Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin. No need for any historical evidence, right? So, we have two historians teaching two different things and both are justified on claiming them as historical fact.

That’s great. Remind me not to attend any of your history lectures.

++ And if historians don’t need to give evidence for their ideas, then there is nothing to stop people claiming any old nonsense about the past - so if Catholics object to the necessity of stating as historical only what can be shown to be historical by appropriate evidence, they cannot complain when people dream up & state nonsense about Constantine the Great being the first Pope. ++