G
Garyjohn2
Guest
Good points! My previous post was essentially saying we should always give our Bishops (and all christians!) the benefit of the doubt. I want to take a look at each of these and see what they say, and if there is a doubt to give the benefit of.
The notes in my NAB say:Mark 6:3
“Son of Mary: contrary to Jewish custom, which calls a man the son of his father, this expression may reflect Mark’s own faith that God is the Father of Jesus (Mark 1:1, 11; 8:38; 13:32; 14:36). The brother of James . . . Simon: in Semitic usage, the terms “brother,” “sister” are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters…On the other hand, Mark may have understood the terms literally; see also Mark 3:31-32; Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56; Luke 8:19; John 7:3, 5. The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.”
It’s true…Mark may have understood this to mean literally. The Word of God is true…but we will never know what was in his Mark’s heart. This may be an un-called for note, but it is not contradictory to anything.
Matthew 12:31 - Not having a note about purgatory here does not mean it contradicts church teaching, or that we should not trust our shepherds.
1corinth3: “Will be saved: although Paul can envision very harsh divine punishment (cf 1 Cor 3:17), he appears optimistic about the success of divine corrective means both here and elsewhere (cf 1 Cor 5:5; 11:32 [discipline]). The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”
This might go against what “many Fathers and theologians” have said, but I don’t know if that means it contradicts official church teaching of the magesterium. We’d have to take a look at who those Fathers are and exactly what they said. It may be a matter of opinion. The verse reads: But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. I’m not exactly sure how to interpret this.
John 6 - again a lack of a note does not mean that there is a contradiction to church teachings, or that the reviewers are unworthy of trust. Jesus’s presence in the Eucharist is a foundation of our faith, and may not require a note. It’s pretty much clearly stated in the Bible.
Intro to Matthew - Jesus DOES predict the destruction of the temple. The intro reads:
“In the discourse of the fifth book (Matthew 24:1-25:46), the last of the great structural discourses of the gospel, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple and his own final coming.” So what is the issue here?
Authors of Gospels: (john for example): The intro does NOT say it was not written by John. it says:
“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person…To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.”
“may make it difficult to accept that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person” is WAY different than saying “John didn’t write this.” We can look at the other intros too, but I think the claim that all these notes blatantly and undeniably contradict church teachings is insubstantial. It depends on how you read it…it also depends on how those church documents are exactly worded. We can’t say with good conscience that the NAB says John didn’t write his gospel, or that Jesus didn’t predict the destruction of the temple…as well as the other claims. They just aren’t true!