Which Nativity Stories *Really* Happened?

[Neil_Anthony]

The nativity narratives thread really shook me up when catholic theologians were openly questioning the historicity of the gospel accounts around Jesus birth. I thought I had it all sorted out which were literal and which were fiction but now I really would like to see what most catholics believe.

 

[KathyCatholic]

HEHE.

I think we know what the “truth” is.

 

[patg]

They are all pretty much equally unlikely - at least as far as being able to prove their historicity, which is impossible.

 

[Sr_Sally]

The Virgin Birth of course. The shepards got the message and wise men arrived–but we don’t know if there were just three. Could be a couple chipped in together for the gold.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The Virgin Birth of course. The shepards got the message and wise men arrived–but we don’t know if there were just three. Could be a couple chipped in together for the gold.

Good point.

 

[turtle18]

How interesting!! First we have to buy all this junk from Catholic theologians that the OT is just an “allegory” or a “story” God is using to explain His divine plan. Now we have these same theologians questioning NT–starting with the birth of Jesus. Well, what’s coming next? I guess the Resurrection is just a parable or something.
Maybe these Catholic theologians need to put aside their pride and arrogance and realize they aren’t smarter than God.

 

[scottm]

They are all pretty much equally unlikely - at least as far as being able to prove their historicity, which is impossible.

The question wasn’t whether you can prove something with scientific test tubes and microscopes and scales and pulleys. The question was what really happened in time and space.

 

[Rawb]

Of course Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, of course the Shepards came to His crib, and of course Wise Men came from the East to pay Him homage. It’s in the Bible and obviously not allegorical. Theologians need to go back to CCD sometimes. They get too far ahead of and into themselves and end up like those artists who think that something that looks horrible looks good because it’s ‘unusual’ or ‘raw’ or whatever, and then go on to design the new Church at Fatima.

I thought you were talking about the ‘out there’ stories about the Nativity, such as the Tabby cats being graced with M’s in honor of their service to Mary and Jesus that night, or how supposidly all animals could speak for the hour from 12:00 AM to 1:00 AM in honor of His birth, or the story about why the Holly stays green all year long. The stories that aren’t in a reliable source (Scripture) but are still told and that my CCD kids like to hear about so much.

 

[patg]

The question wasn’t whether you can prove something with scientific test tubes and microscopes and scales and pulleys. The question was what really happened in time and space.

What method do you suggest we use to determine "what really happened"? Belief in any of these things is purely a matter of faith - regardless of whether it is Santa Claus or the Magi.

 

[patg]

Of course Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, of course the Shepards came to His crib, and of course Wise Men came from the East to pay Him homage.

Of course, but that is purely a matter of faith.

It’s in the Bible and obviously not allegorical.

There is no connection between something being in the bible and it not being allegorical. As the church states, the bible contains poetry, allegory, myth, legend, parable, and even some history.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What method do you suggest we use to determine "what really happened"? Belief in any of these things is purely a matter of faith - regardless of whether it is Santa Claus or the Magi.

Well this is a catholic forum… you’re allowed to have faith. Faith is a good thing

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

You will know them by their fruits.

A “catholic theologian” that questions the reality of the gospels is not a “catholic theologian”.

 

[patg]

You will know them by their fruits.

A “catholic theologian” that questions the reality of the gospels is not a “catholic theologian”.

Actually the proper term would be Catholic scipture scholars, not theologians. And yes, numerous Catholic scripture scholars, members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and even Popes have fully supported this questioning. You don’t have to agree with them, but they are fully catholic.

 

[Sr_Sally]

I thought you were talking about the ‘out there’ stories about the Nativity, such as the Tabby cats being graced with M’s in honor of their service to Mary and Jesus that night, or how supposidly all animals could speak for the hour from 12:00 AM to 1:00 AM in honor of His birth, or the story about why the Holly stays green all year long. The stories that aren’t in a reliable source (Scripture) but are still told and that my CCD kids like to hear about so much.

Those stories are very quaintly called ‘pious fiction’. My kids (real and CCD) like to hear them also.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

…and even Popes have fully supported this questioning.

No pope has ever questioned the reality of the nativity, or the Gospels. You are completely incorrect.

Benedict has said he supports the work of those trying to flesh out the age that Christ was born into, and the picture of the “Historical Jesus”. That support does not extend to questioning the veracity of the Gospel accounts. Did you read “Jesus of Nazareth”?

 

[buffalo]

Let’s see what Benedict says:

Benedict XVI has never wavered in his belief
that the Bible itself is
fundamentally one with the living tradition of the Church.
Catholic Biblical Scholarship

…But there is every reason to be optimistic for the future of Catholic biblical scholarship. Benedict has never wavered in his belief that the Bible itself is fundamentally one with the living tradition of the Church — both in her later theology and her worship in the liturgy. This oneness is an ontological fact rooted in the incarnation of Christ and an historical fact rooted in the very nature of revelation. It is, in short, not merely one of a chorus of scholarly hypotheses. Benedict is quite aware that it will take some time for scholarship to catch up so to speak with “faith’s hermeneutic.”** When this takes place the Church will have shown thather interpretive traditions are not only the oldest and the most venerable but also the only ones that can survive a thoroughgoing critical scrutiny. Catholic readings of Scripture will be at once most in keeping with true Christian teaching and living but also the most academically respectable**. When this occurs, the Church will have put to rest the historical challenge to the veracity of the Holy Scriptures and will have enriched her knowledge of the Bible immeasurably. Benedict’s corpus suggests many philosophical and exegetical avenues for how this might ultimately be done. As the ideas of Benedict begin to make their mark on the Church, we may well be on the cusp of a golden age in Catholic biblical study.

 

[patg]

No pope has ever questioned the reality of the nativity, or the Gospels. You are completely incorrect.

You are completely incorrect.

Pope Paul VI did when he published Dei Verbum. And, more significantly, when he also approved and ordered the publication of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels. His statement appears at the end of the report.

Benedict has said he supports the work of those trying to flesh out the age that Christ was born into, and the picture of the “Historical Jesus”. That support does not extend to questioning the veracity of the Gospel accounts.

Really? We’ll see.

Did you read “Jesus of Nazareth”?

I’ve read that and a whole lot more.

 

[scottm]

What method do you suggest we use to determine "what really happened"? Belief in any of these things is purely a matter of faith - regardless of whether it is Santa Claus or the Magi.

I believe my great-granda lived, even though I can’t put her in a test tube and display her to the world. There are ways of verifiying things that can’t be repeated.

What you’re ACTUALLY saying is that Christianity has no stronger claim on truth than Greek mythology, or Shinto mythology, or Hopi mythology, or the Hindu pantheon or deities. That’s a false conclusion. Ain’t gonna fly.

 

[patg]

I believe my great-granda lived, even though I can’t put her in a test tube and display her to the world.

I’m sure you can find a lot more verifiable evidence that your grandparents lived than anyone could ever find about most of the events in the bible.

And, I doubt that the catholic church ever specifically stated that the stories of your grandparents may not be literally true while the church has stated this about the gospels.

There are ways of verifiying things that can’t be repeated.

That is true. Unfortunately that helps very little in respect to the gospels.

What you’re ACTUALLY saying is that Christianity has no stronger claim on truth than Greek mythology, or Shinto mythology, or Hopi mythology, or the Hindu pantheon or deities.

I never said the gospels did not teach truth; the gospels teach deep profound truths. But, as the church states, those truths are often taught in stories which are not to be taken literalistically.

What you are ACTUALLY saying is that there is no place for or need for faith - you can prove everything in the bible is literal history, not just that you believe it actually happened. That’s a false conclusion. Ain’t gonna fly.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You will know them by their fruits.

A “catholic theologian” that questions the reality of the gospels is not a “catholic theologian”.

Well that would come as a surprise to a great many catholic theologians. And those who do biblical exegesis are usually scriptural scholars not theologians.

No pope has ever questioned the reality of the nativity, or the Gospels. You are completely incorrect.

you have no proof of that. Benedict and JPII have both spoken to the “metaphorical” aspects of various NT stories.

Benedict has said he supports the work of those trying to flesh out the age that Christ was born into, and the picture of the “Historical Jesus”. That support does not extend to questioning the veracity of the Gospel accounts. Did you read “Jesus of Nazareth”?

That’s illogical.