I hear you CindiA. Oh, how I wish opening the Bible didnt have so many obstacles
. If we didnt have the Church, correct interpretation would be nearly impossible. Read the posts of FCEGM on this thread, it might shed some light on the matter for you.I definitely agree with you CindiA. There are several Scripture scholars and apologists out there who are not big fans of the historical-critical method. I think there was a reason several Popes were wary to start allowing the usage of this method. It’s a slippery slope and I think they saw it. I don’t think in 50 years the historical-critical method will have done anything meaningful or “productive” and it will probably be dropped altogether. Some Pope will hopefully see the error in this method. The historical-critical method is definitely not the “be all, end all” some make it out to be. The best thing to do is just don’t pay attention to them. They are too enamored by their “method” to ever do anything else. It will fall by the wayside in coming generations, as many will see that it’s not really as “historical,” as some make it out to be. I interpret all the above events to have actually occurred. I just don’t see what the fascination is in trying to dispute these events, by Catholics no less, especially when some of this actually tries to refute Catholic Dogma. This method has lead to the rejection of Original Sin by some, and belief in polygenism by others. First of all, there will never be enough evidence to actually dispute anything, and nothing good can come of trying to do so, but plenty bad can come of it. It is definitely disheartening to say the least.
That is too general of a question. Believe what? Believe in the truths inspired by God? Believe in the faulty history, biology, or other ancient misunderstandings of science in the bible? Believe, like many fundamentalists do, that the bible is something it isn’t? Believe that there aren’t deep layers of symbolism and meaning and literary genres and that it takes serious study to understand them?
No, you are expected to believe that He could do them. You are also expected to understand what the Pontifical Biblical Commission has written as instructions in its documents - that what we have in the gospels are not eyewitness accounts which always describe what literally happened. And also what our Popes have said about the bible teaching truth using fictional genres.
You are certainly free to believe that. But again, it is important to understand what the scholars of the Church say also. AND, “bunches of made up stories” are quite capable of teaching deep truths. Are you implying that God isn’t allowed to teach this way?
As I said above, it depends on what you believe and why you believe it. You might want to pick up a copy of Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D. Witherup S.S. or *And God Said What? *by Margaret Ralph (both are inexpensive paperbacks and may be in your library).
All are true. All are historical. All will be rejected by most scientists due to the philosophy of science. On the other hand, some scientists have faith, and can accept the stories as true and historical.
Quick!! Sprinkle it with some Holy Water and see if it sizzles!!
Really? You would put your credentials and life’s work up against one of the great contemporary biblical scholars and authors of the Church? The author of the book used in a many, many adult ed programs, a diocesan Director of adult education? This is a book EVERY Catholic should be required to read and study over and over. We have taught from it constantly for over 20 years. She is perfectly in line with the other scholars of the church - from the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Raymond Brown to John Meier to Paul VI to Pius XII. You may burn it but that would be a very sad loss for your understanding of scripture.Here’s a quote from the book some historical-critical fans recommend
And God Said What: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms by Margaret Nuting Ralph, director of themaster’s degree programs for Roman Catholics at Lexington Theological Seminary"
“Remember that the legends were told and retold not merely to recall the past but to affect a present audience. To embellish a legend with marvelous details is to make it all the more interesting and inspiring to the next generation. In most legends exaggeration is used to build up a human hero.” This was referring to Moses parting the red sea.
I can’t decide whether to finish reading the book so that I can know the enemy we’re up against, or whether to burn it right now. It feels as though I’ve let the devil loose into my house by opening this book!
No, there is not a single “resurrection” story in the gospels. There are a number of conflicting and confusing post-resurrection “empty tomb” and “appearance” stories, but no witnesses to the actual resurrection.
Empty tombs don’t prove anything, except to insiders. Nor do reports of appearances of risen leaders. In the gospels the risen Jesus appears only to those who already believe in him. Those who see him after his resurrection are those who followed him during his lifetime. John’s gospel originally ended with a blessing for those who believe in Jesus without needing to see him firsthand. John’s implication is that it takes little faith to believe when one has seen the risen Lord in person. Matthew, however, does not agree. At the very end of Matthew’s gospel is a fascinating and unexpected statement. He reports that even some of the apostles who personally encountered the risen Jesus had their doubts. Just before Jesus sent forth the Eleven with the Great Commission, they prostrated themselves before Jesus, “but some doubted” (28:17). This gospel thus closes with a cryptic admission that even some of these ultimate insiders were not convinced by a face-to-face encounter with the risen Lord. Matthew’s abrupt comment comes as a complete surprise and its precise meaning is puzzling. But this much at least is clear: Whatever else the gospels may teach about the resurrection, faith in the risen Jesus requires more than stories about him, no matter how convincing these stories may be to some insiders.
The eyewitnesses of the disciples seeing and touching the wounds of Jesus after He resurrected is enough evidence to prove the historicity of the Resurrection.
You have a misunderstanding as to what historians regard as proof. Belief that the accounts in the gospels are “historical” can only be based on faith - there is almost no historical evidence for them. The Pontifical Biblical Commission specifically states that the gospel accounts are neither eyewitness nor literal.
I like some things about the book. Her explanation of how oral tradition works and how those traditions get written down were very illuminating.
So are you saying that maybe Jesus was just in a deep coma, and he came out of it a day or so after they put Him in the tomb?
No I am not saying that at all. I am saying that God created nature, so it is safe to say that He understands it better than you. It is not unreasonable to believe that God knows how to bring people back to life, even though man will never know how.
