P
patg
Guest
Did anyone here deny that?
Did someone here say they didn’t believe this? I did say that it was primarily a matter of faith since there is so little evidence - is that what this is referring to?
Which Biblical Stories are Historical, Miraculous, and Unexplainable by Science?
- Status
C
CindiA
Guest
No judgement here. Glad I’m not in God’s shoes. I’d blow the whole lot of us to smithereens. Nope, not judging. Not my job. Thanks be to God for that.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
And how is the historical-critical method constructive? We can criticize the Bible, but Lord help the person who criticizes the method that criticizes the Bible.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Not explicitly, but there are three people who voted who denied it. For their sake, I hope they’re not Catholic. On top of this, if the fruits of the historical-critical method lead to 43% of Catholics rejecting Original Sin (a De fide Dogma of the Church), then I would rather do without it. The slippery slope has already been realized.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
SemperFidelis speaks the truth.
I think there are alot of people that claim to be Catholic but don’t really believe in the resurrection of Jesus
They believe in it as much as they believe in Santa Claus.
And why do I say that?
Because it wrenches their guts out with utter pain to propose that the resurection of Jesus is More than just a point of faith but an actual historical factual reality.
Why does it hurt them so much to proclaim it as fact?
Who cares if it can be “Proven” or not?
Such “Proof” will never satisfy some.
What Is True Is True and it doesn’t matter if some people are unconvinced!
Do not the scriptures say that the “Wisdom of man is Foolishness to God”?
The same people who would go into so much pain in proclaiming the reusrrection of Jesus as fact are the same people who probably don’t really in their heart of hearts believe in the reusrrection either.
If may be sophisticated and politicaly correct and cool to not proclaim the resurrection of Jesus a fact–
But do you really want to have the faith of Thomas?
Did not Jesus say “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”.
The eyes of science will never be capable of seeing the vision of God.
That takes different kinds of eyes.
Don’t be hindered by the physical eyes you have–open your eyes to see what is really truth–and yes real truth is objective–not subjective–and it is not bound by matter!
I think there are alot of people that claim to be Catholic but don’t really believe in the resurrection of Jesus
They believe in it as much as they believe in Santa Claus.
And why do I say that?
Because it wrenches their guts out with utter pain to propose that the resurection of Jesus is More than just a point of faith but an actual historical factual reality.
Why does it hurt them so much to proclaim it as fact?
Who cares if it can be “Proven” or not?
Such “Proof” will never satisfy some.
What Is True Is True and it doesn’t matter if some people are unconvinced!
Do not the scriptures say that the “Wisdom of man is Foolishness to God”?
The same people who would go into so much pain in proclaiming the reusrrection of Jesus as fact are the same people who probably don’t really in their heart of hearts believe in the reusrrection either.
If may be sophisticated and politicaly correct and cool to not proclaim the resurrection of Jesus a fact–
But do you really want to have the faith of Thomas?
Did not Jesus say “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”.
The eyes of science will never be capable of seeing the vision of God.
That takes different kinds of eyes.
Don’t be hindered by the physical eyes you have–open your eyes to see what is really truth–and yes real truth is objective–not subjective–and it is not bound by matter!
J
juliamajor
Guest
Well . hate to tell you , you’ve got it all wrong.The eyes of MY heart have been open for quite awhile - God gave us intellect & the brains to use them. if we do not attempt to use them and we remain"lukewarm" the Lord will spit us out. Read Sirach; the physician ,the scribe the worker with his hands all have a place in God’s Kingdom and a part to play in God’s plan of salvation. The Historian is as valuable as the theologian as the exegete, as the priest as the physician- all, all have there place and their position in the tapestry of God’s workings. The Catholic Church as always been a bastion of intellectualism and it is a very scary trend.I believe catholics have been “tainted” by the simplistic(not simple) anti- intellectualism of Fundamentalist churches that has crept into the mindset of’ some Catholics- it’s sad really. I’d be frightened except I know God has everything under control- something folks should remember before the start putting people on the heretic or hell bound list.Alleluia- praise the Lord!
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I think charges of anti-intellectualism and fundamentalism are just dodges for liberal Catholics who don’t believe that God is truely Not bound by matter!
Pope Benedict XVI does not believe that the universe is bound by matter.
Does that make him an anti-intellectual or a fundamentalist?
Pope Benedict XVI does not believe that the universe is bound by matter.
Does that make him an anti-intellectual or a fundamentalist?
C
CindiA
Guest
Neither. It just makes him informed and intelligent.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Oh , please! God is not bound by time or space or matter or human minds or human laws or what We think or how We think He should operate or act. I wouldn’t call myself a liberal Catholic nor a Traditionalist though I wouldn’t consider a pejorative- I don’t like putting people into boxes and labeling them- I’ll leave that to you. As far as B16 - he knows how dangerous a fundamentalist attitude is.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
super glad to hear it.No judgement here. Glad I’m not in God’s shoes. I’d blow the whole lot of us to smithereens. Nope, not judging. Not my job. Thanks be to God for that.
You presume too much. Of course any methodology is open to criticism and no doubt some of it is worthwhile and meaningful. But there seems to be a tendency on this forum that if you don’t like it and what you don’t like can be criticized in any fashion, then the entire thing should be rejected. That just isn’t the way it works. Moreover , there is not “the historical critical method”. there are myriad forms designed by different scholars to look at the scriptures in very specific ways. I don’t pretend to understand it all by any means. I know overall its given us much valuable information. Like any discipline, as time goes on, things once accepted are rejected in favor of newer and better information. This doesn’t condemn the method, it refines it.
As I said, its certainly not the criticism of the method that worries me, but the determination that that is a reason to discard it in favor of archaic methods. If you want to see criticism of the methodology one has only to look at the professional journals. The experts argue constantly among themselves. That’s what inquiry is all about. You would find the same exact methods used in any historical pursuit, whether it be the history of the Bourbons or the history of the Gaul. And the arguments are just as intense tthere.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Can you explain what this truth not bounded by matter is? I think maybe I understand you, but I’m not clear. Clearly i would agree that God exists outside both time and space. Is this what you are referring to?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Thanks for putting things into perspective. God will indeed solve this little glitch we are experiencing. The slide into fundamentalism that seems to be occurring to some Catholics is most unfortunate and leads to a ridgidity in thinking that will make those so adher to it increasingly unable to cope in a modern world. More and more of the world’s problems require an open minded “out of the box” approach and cross-disciplinary reasoning. This kind of compartmentalized thinking will not be helpful to them or to others.Well . hate to tell you , you’ve got it all wrong.The eyes of MY heart have been open for quite awhile - God gave us intellect & the brains to use them. if we do not attempt to use them and we remain"lukewarm" the Lord will spit us out. Read Sirach; the physician ,the scribe the worker with his hands all have a place in God’s Kingdom and a part to play in God’s plan of salvation. The Historian is as valuable as the theologian as the exegete, as the priest as the physician- all, all have there place and their position in the tapestry of God’s workings. The Catholic Church as always been a bastion of intellectualism and it is a very scary trend.I believe catholics have been “tainted” by the simplistic(not simple) anti- intellectualism of Fundamentalist churches that has crept into the mindset of’ some Catholics- it’s sad really. I’d be frightened except I know God has everything under control- something folks should remember before the start putting people on the heretic or hell bound list.Alleluia- praise the Lord!
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Why would the HCM or its (unspecified) fruits have that effect 
? It is not clear how denial of something that can be known only by faith could be caused by a method based on the use of historical & literary arguments. That’s like expecting the scientific analysis of the spectrum of colours to affect aesthetic judgements about a work of art. The judgement that the use of blue in a portrait is brilliantly executed, is not affected by scientific analyses of how the various shades of blue & green & the rest are related.
There may be theological topics which have helped to cause more schisms, errors, & heresies than Christology - but none comes to mind. Why not throw out Christology ? It has had 19 centuries to show its fruits, & many of them have (by your test) been utterly disastrous. Men have been exiled, imprisoned, even killed, for having the wrong Christological belief - how many have suffered any of that for their views on the HCM & allied methods ?
R
rpp
Guest
I believe the reason why the Historical-Critical Method has such a deleterious affect on the faithful is a result two main issues. Who is employing it and then the consequence of the method itself.Why would the HCM or its (unspecified) fruits have that effect
There may be theological topics which have helped to cause more schisms, errors, & heresies than Christology - but none comes to mind. Why not throw out Christology ? It has had 19 centuries to show its fruits, & many of them have (by your test) been utterly disastrous. Men have been exiled, imprisoned, even killed, for having the wrong Christological belief - how many have suffered any of that for their views on the HCM & allied methods ?
HCM removes the faith aspect from scripture study. The student tries to learn to context in which the author lived, how the author of a particular passage grew up, what was the political situation, how did the person employ language and so on. So by learning about the author and the times, we can learn about the motivation for the writing and even about word choice. Or so scholars who favor this method say.
There are some things, however, that are often ignored. Such as the fact that scripture is inspired by God and the authors were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what they did. This is critical. and it is completely ignored by HCM. Instead HCM scholars busy themselves trying to come up elaborate and sometimes fantastic theories about why scriptures agree and do not contradict. The “Q” gospel is an example of this.
Additionally, miracles are sometimes explained-away as “literary devices” or a misunderstanding about places (e.g. explaining the parting of the Red Sea by claiming they actually crossed a marsh they named the “Sea of Reeds”. And claimimg that it was the Egyption chariots that got stuck in the mire. It does not explain how the foot soldiers drown or how the Israelites heavily loaded carts did not get stuck but the lighter Chariots did.)
By isolating Holy Scripture from faith and trying to interpret it as some type of historical record, the student can get lost in the details and forget the reason for study to begin with. Or even God’s primary purpose in giving us Holy Scripture.
There is also an undercurrent of “We are smarter than people were then.” attitude the infiltrates all of HCM. This grossly inaccurate premise is not generally helpful either.
We can see how using this method can hide the Glory of God in details. As for the who I mentioned at the beginning? Well, there are always people who want to deny scripture. By provide mundane explanations to miraculous events, little by little, they tear down scripture and do great harm to the faith of many.
Enemies of the Church love HCM. Why? It gives them the ability to attack the Church indirectly by giving them a basis for alternate explanations or outright denials that certain events even occurred. And they can do under the guise of “scholarly research”.
I am not saying that HCM is all bad. Not at all. It can help us understand what is really happening at the time and why certain things are important. However, to try to apply it to miraculous events, moments of Divine intervention, and the like, then it is being misapplied. Using HCM as the primary or sole method of Scripture study and exegesis, is a misapplication of it as well.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
By isolating Holy Scripture from faith and trying to interpret it as some type of historical record, the student can get lost in the details and forget the reason for study to begin with. Or even God’s primary purpose in giving us Holy Scripture.
**That depends entirely on what the student wants and expects. i doubt any real student is the least confused on which type of analysis they are given. I agree that there are some very conservative persons who do not wish to examine the scriptures in a rigorous way as is done with other non-biblical writings, but this is hardly a condemnation of the HCM. **
There is also an undercurrent of “We are smarter than people were then.” attitude the infiltrates all of HCM. This grossly inaccurate premise is not generally helpful either.
**That may be true, but I don’t think it;s meant that way. It just reflects the difference in purpose of study that has as its goal a more pastoral interpretation and that which has a more academic goal in mind. **
We can see how using this method can hide the Glory of God in details. As for the who I mentioned at the beginning? Well, there are always people who want to deny scripture. By provide mundane explanations to miraculous events, little by little, they tear down scripture and do great harm to the faith of many.
**Gosh, I’ve read some amazingly potent new visions of God and his work in salvation from some of these analysis. It’s all in what you wish to see I guess. I don’t think they make anything mundane. Sometimes one learns a greater appreciation for the skill of the writers who were amazingly masterful at times in fashioning wriitings that told a very powerful story. I agree that such interpretations can be frightening to some who don’t understand and feel that this is somehow threatening to their faith. Those who require a more fundamentalist approach to feel that safety can be upset no doubt. **
Enemies of the Church love HCM. Why? It gives them the ability to attack the Church indirectly by giving them a basis for alternate explanations or outright denials that certain events even occurred. And they can do under the guise of “scholarly research”.
**You will of course have to substantiate this claim. I’m at a loss why anyone who hates the Church and thus hates the bible itself would waste a lifetime investigating these things for no reason other than to destroy the Church, and as I have said, I find no evidence that their work needs to be seen in that fashion anyhow. It’s not done under any guise. It is scholarly research. **
I am not saying that HCM is all bad. Not at all. It can help us understand what is really happening at the time and why certain things are important. However, to try to apply it to miraculous events, moments of Divine intervention, and the like, then it is being misapplied. Using HCM as the primary or sole method of Scripture study and exegesis, is a misapplication of it as well.
I think you misunderstand a great deal of what HCM is doing at least scholarly. Often what they uncover is that the writer has used well known OT references to certain miraculous works as a way of implying that he too speaks of a miraculous event. Such should not upset one; in fact, it points to the serious and deep belief on the part of the writer and that his community was similarly deeply believing.
**That depends entirely on what the student wants and expects. i doubt any real student is the least confused on which type of analysis they are given. I agree that there are some very conservative persons who do not wish to examine the scriptures in a rigorous way as is done with other non-biblical writings, but this is hardly a condemnation of the HCM. **
There is also an undercurrent of “We are smarter than people were then.” attitude the infiltrates all of HCM. This grossly inaccurate premise is not generally helpful either.
**That may be true, but I don’t think it;s meant that way. It just reflects the difference in purpose of study that has as its goal a more pastoral interpretation and that which has a more academic goal in mind. **
We can see how using this method can hide the Glory of God in details. As for the who I mentioned at the beginning? Well, there are always people who want to deny scripture. By provide mundane explanations to miraculous events, little by little, they tear down scripture and do great harm to the faith of many.
**Gosh, I’ve read some amazingly potent new visions of God and his work in salvation from some of these analysis. It’s all in what you wish to see I guess. I don’t think they make anything mundane. Sometimes one learns a greater appreciation for the skill of the writers who were amazingly masterful at times in fashioning wriitings that told a very powerful story. I agree that such interpretations can be frightening to some who don’t understand and feel that this is somehow threatening to their faith. Those who require a more fundamentalist approach to feel that safety can be upset no doubt. **
Enemies of the Church love HCM. Why? It gives them the ability to attack the Church indirectly by giving them a basis for alternate explanations or outright denials that certain events even occurred. And they can do under the guise of “scholarly research”.
**You will of course have to substantiate this claim. I’m at a loss why anyone who hates the Church and thus hates the bible itself would waste a lifetime investigating these things for no reason other than to destroy the Church, and as I have said, I find no evidence that their work needs to be seen in that fashion anyhow. It’s not done under any guise. It is scholarly research. **
I am not saying that HCM is all bad. Not at all. It can help us understand what is really happening at the time and why certain things are important. However, to try to apply it to miraculous events, moments of Divine intervention, and the like, then it is being misapplied. Using HCM as the primary or sole method of Scripture study and exegesis, is a misapplication of it as well.
I think you misunderstand a great deal of what HCM is doing at least scholarly. Often what they uncover is that the writer has used well known OT references to certain miraculous works as a way of implying that he too speaks of a miraculous event. Such should not upset one; in fact, it points to the serious and deep belief on the part of the writer and that his community was similarly deeply believing.
R
rpp
Guest
Spirit Meadow, I am not ignoring your rather complete response to my post. I am just mulling it over. Really, I am.
And here is proof. I stumbled across this just a few minutes ago. I remember learning this some time ago, but had forgottern where. Then I saw a thread that had it.
When I was taught the HCM method in my Scripture Exegete classes, not a single one of these rules from the Catechism was every mentioned. And not a single one of those who preferred the HCM even came close to being a faithful Catholic, including the two nuns and the priest who taught the classes. (The priest, by the way, is no longer a priest and is now serving some time in the pokey for being a little too friendly with little boys.
The nuns recently publicized their membership in Catholics for Free Choice, a pseudo-Catholic group that promotes abortion. )
So I hope you will forgive if I have some bad associations with HCM.
And here is proof. I stumbled across this just a few minutes ago. I remember learning this some time ago, but had forgottern where. Then I saw a thread that had it.
These rules must be included in all methods of scripture study. The fact that they are from the Catechism give them some rather significant weight.
When I was taught the HCM method in my Scripture Exegete classes, not a single one of these rules from the Catechism was every mentioned. And not a single one of those who preferred the HCM even came close to being a faithful Catholic, including the two nuns and the priest who taught the classes. (The priest, by the way, is no longer a priest and is now serving some time in the pokey for being a little too friendly with little boys.
The nuns recently publicized their membership in Catholics for Free Choice, a pseudo-Catholic group that promotes abortion. )So I hope you will forgive if I have some bad associations with HCM.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
No problem. And I see what your difficulty is I believe. The rules from the CCC deal with pastoral or what I would argue are the normal apologetic way we read scripture. When we read as believers we read differently than when we read critically. Such rules as these would not be appropriate for academic study for quite obvious reasons–the spiritual and moral senses would introduce unnecessary personal beliefs into the process. In serious historical examiniation of scripture as in the examination of any literary work every effort must be made to remove one’s own personal “lens” from the picture.Spirit Meadow, I am not ignoring your rather complete response to my post. I am just mulling it over. Really, I am.
And here is proof. I stumbled across this just a few minutes ago. I remember learning this some time ago, but had forgottern where. Then I saw a thread that had it.
These rules must be included in all methods of scripture study. The fact that they are from the Catechism give them some rather significant weight.
When I was taught the HCM method in my Scripture Exegete classes, not a single one of these rules from the Catechism was every mentioned. And not a single one of those who preferred the HCM even came close to being a faithful Catholic, including the two nuns and the priest who taught the classes. (The priest, by the way, is no longer a priest and is now serving some time in the pokey for being a little too friendly with little boys.
So I hope you will forgive if I have some bad associations with HCM.
I’m very sorry you had an unpleasant experience. Perhaps you expected something different than what they were offering. But their later difficulties as you stated them, really would have little to do with their ability to properly examine scripture from a HC methodology.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
How is any of that wrong ? The HCM is as little or as much antagonistic to faith as the use of similar methods in the study of Livy or Homer - their works were used in much the same way as the OT. It is not wrong to point out that the first five books of Livy are largely legendary,or to mention extra-Livian parallels - so why is it objectionable to treat the first five books of the Hebrews in this way ?
No one objects when Livy is studied in that way - yet people do object when these other books are studied in that way. But why ? The Hebrew books are are as worthy of close study as any others - so what’s the problem ? No one calls for implicit faith in the inspiration or inerrancy of the Iliad, no one calls for the excommunication of those who deny the perfect veracity of every word of Odysseus, & no one makes the ability of the horse Xanthus to spealk with his master Achilles a test of orthodoxy - but that is how some Christians behave with the first five books of the OT. Why the difference ?Faith is not used in studying the OT, because faith is not an academic instrument or method: faith won’t cast light on how Livy used his sources, nor will it cast any light on the identity of the Hittites in Gen. 23. So, it’s not used. Greek is learned by study of grammar - not by faith.
Things that may or do cast light on these questions & others, are used - because they are appropriate to the issues involved. But to rest one’s understanding of Mesopotamian adoption laws or Levitical names upon faith would be intolerably subjective. People can have all the faith in the world that Basque was the language of Abraham - but if they won’t allow this idea to be reviewed by others & controlled by evidence, it is academically useless.
So faith has its place - but not as an academic tool.
It’s irrelevant to the HCM - like a million other things. One might as well complain that the HCM is practiced by haters of kilts: for they are never mentioned either
It is at least an attempt to reckon with the facts of the Gospel text - the solution may be right or wrong, but it is a response to actual data. BTW - Q is deemed to be a source-document; not a gospel.
Electronics is “elaborate” - so is dogmatic theology. That a discipline is elaborate, surprising, & not always easy is not an objection to its legitimacy.[more]
- Status