Hey Fellow Theology Students/graduates....help Please!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='11 June 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1276289270' post='2127435']
Religious knowledge does depend on the gifts of faith and revelation. I do not consider the existence of God and the human spirit to be "religious knowledge", however. I believe that the existence of the spirit and of God may be known without faith or revelation.
[/quote]
I am a fideist in the same way that St. Gregory of Nyssa was a fideist, that is to say . . . I believe that faith only begins when discursive reasoning ends.

[kafka]

for those interested here is a summary of where I am at with the Abiathar problem:

1. I've looked up the Mark verse and the Samuel verses in about a total twenty Catholic and Protestant Bible commentaries, dictionaries and footnotes to different translations and the vast majority either implicitly or explicitly admit that Mark erred. A remaining handful make no comment on the problem. Most of the books I looked up were modern. And the only one who expressed no discrepancy is Saint Bede the Venerable in Aquinas' Catena Aurea (though I disagree with Bede's explanation):

"There is, however, no discrepancy, for both were there, when David came to ask for bread, and received it: that is to say, Abimelech, the High Priest, and Abiathar his son; but Abimelech having been slain by Saul, Abiathar fled to David, and became the Companion of all his exile afterwards. When he came to the throne, he himself also received the rank of High Priest, amid the son became of much greater excellence than the falter, and therefore was worthy to be mentioned as the High Priest, even during his father's life-"

These results are very telling as regards the current state of total inspiration and total inerrancy in modern life. Quick to point out an apparent error yet irresponsible in trying to solve a difficult problem in favor of defending inspiration and inerrancy.

2. Matthew also describes this event. He does not mention Ahimelech or Abiathar. So I think this may be a proof of the view Mark wrote his Gospel after Matthew, for he adds this additional information of Abiathar. Perhaps this came from the influence of Peter our first pope. It seems Peter, as first pope and he who loves Jesus more than the others would have appreciated this additional teaching of Christ and its spiritual significance. Or maybe there is some other reason. Luke does not mention Abiathar or Ahimelech. I do not have the ability to speculate on why.

3. Well what is my opinion at this point? It roughly goes as follows though I still need to refine it:

Ahimelech was a high priest and father of Abiathar who succeeded him as high priest as Christ said and Mark wrote. By the time David came to Nob Ahimelech was an old man and high priest for a long time since there is reason to believe that he is Ahijah who wore the ephod with the breastplace of judgment containing the Urim and Thumin. This Ahijah was high priest at Shiloh before the priests moved to Nob. Perhaps Ahimelech changed his name when he moved to Nob. In any case I think he was older and high priest for many years by the time David came. In his old age Ahimelech clothed his son Abiathar with the ephod (with breastplate) which is the ceremony of investure and anointed him high priest. It seems like this would be the custom after the first example of Eleazar being invested with Aaron's garments before he died.

So Abiathar was officiating as high priest when David arrived in Nob. Ahimelech an old man and former high priest would still be in a position of honor and able to make decisions since the office of high priest at the time seemed to be primarily liturgical and special for the Day of Atonement. Later in post-exilic times it became a position of more temporal and political authority. So Ahimelech took charge of the situation. Or perhaps Abiathar was away for the time (in Gibeah where the Ark was resting). Yet Christ says and Mark records that David took the Bread of Presence when Abiathar was high priest.

After David left Nob, Doeg reported this act of harboring David to Saul. Then they went to Nob and slaughtered 85 priests including Ahimelech. Abiathar was the only one to escape, and he seems to have escaped with the ephod with the breastplate of judgment and not the common linen ephod worn by all the priests since he presented it to David who used it to consult the LORD. So this implies he was high priest at the time of the slaughter. The escape was providential, since he was high priest and a foreshadowing of the resurrection and immortality of the great high priest Jesus Christ (a theme of Hebrews). Then he came into David's protection perhaps a foreshadowing of the Ascension, and remained high priest for many years during the reign of David and was finally deposed by Solomon.

4. And then there is a spiritual level of meaning to the passage of Mark I began to work on above.

So these are my thoughts at this point.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' date='11 June 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1276307337' post='2127585']
2. Matthew also describes this event. He does not mention Ahimelech or Abiathar. So I think this may be a proof of the view Mark wrote his Gospel after Matthew, for he adds this additional information of Abiathar. Perhaps this came from the influence of Peter our first pope. It seems Peter, as first pope and he who loves Jesus more than the others would have appreciated this additional teaching of Christ and its spiritual significance. Or maybe there is some other reason. Luke does not mention Abiathar or Ahimelech. I do not have the ability to speculate on why.
[/quote]
Found out today that Luke was a Greek writing for Greeks. He did not have much knowledge of Hebrew history and his audience would not have been interested in who the name of the high priest was.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='12 June 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1276367336' post='2127751']
Found out today that Luke was a Greek writing for Greeks. He did not have much knowledge of Hebrew history and his audience would not have been interested in who the name of the high priest was.
[/quote]

Or Matthew was written after Mark (a nearly universal consensus amongst scholars on all sides) and omitted what appeared to be an embarrassing blunder. It is likewise interesting, given the Latin-friendly writing, to consider the possibility that Mark was a latinized Jew, maybe even a Roman, and was not as schooled in the Jewish Tradition as Matthew would have been.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='13 June 2010 - 07:58 AM' timestamp='1276433915' post='2128048']
Or Matthew was written after Mark (a nearly universal consensus amongst scholars on all sides) and omitted what appeared to be an embarrassing blunder. It is likewise interesting, given the Latin-friendly writing, to consider the possibility that Mark was a latinized Jew, maybe even a Roman, and was not as schooled in the Jewish Tradition as Matthew would have been.
[/quote]
The which came first argument will add 10 pages to this thread.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='11 June 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1276289957' post='2127445']
If you could convince me of that, I would be on your side. But I do not think that the fictional accounts themselves or numerical values themselves or the scientific misunderstandings themselves are part of the message of Scripture.
[/quote]

Everything contained in the inspired books is part of God's message in that the human authors of holy Scripture wrote all and only what God inspired them to write.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='13 June 2010 - 07:58 AM' timestamp='1276433915' post='2128048']
Or Matthew was written after Mark (a nearly universal consensus amongst scholars on all sides) and omitted what appeared to be an embarrassing blunder.
[/quote]

There are no blunders in the inspired text of holy Scripture since the human authors wrote all and only what God wanted them to write. (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 11).

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='13 June 2010 - 08:58 AM' timestamp='1276433915' post='2128048']
Or Matthew was written after Mark (a nearly universal consensus amongst scholars on all sides) and omitted what appeared to be an embarrassing blunder. It is likewise interesting, given the Latin-friendly writing, to consider the possibility that Mark was a latinized Jew, maybe even a Roman, and was not as schooled in the Jewish Tradition as Matthew would have been.
[/quote]
I would reply that only a scholar lacking faith would make a speculation such as this one. I am not saying you lack faith, but I have researched several more books giving scholarly interpretations of Mark, and I finally found a modern Catholic scholar who tries to make sense of the problem. Plus I checked the Haydock commentary and it seems that other Catholic scholars (before the total inspiration and inerrancy rift over the past century) also tried to solve the problem including Bede the Venerable.

The consensus that Mark wrote his Gospel first is a one of modern speculation (partly based on this speculative Q-source which has never shown up). Before the modern era it was tradition with a little t that Matthew wrote his Gospel first and this view is also based on reason and accounts of Jerome and Eusebius.

I can direct you to some articles if you are interested, but Mark would have been too young to write the Gospel first, and it is clear that he wrote it after learning the faith for several years from Saint Peter, just before his missionary journey to Egypt.

It is also interesting to note that Mark would have witnessed some of Jesus' teachings and miracles since his Mother was a disciple. So maybe he remembered this additional teaching of Jesus. In any case if Mark wrote first and added Abiathar, I think Matthew writing to the Jews surely would have added it since it would have been meaningful to the Jews.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' date='13 June 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1276448989' post='2128113']
In any case if Mark wrote first and added Abiathar, I think Matthew writing to the Jews surely would have added it since it would have been meaningful to the Jews.
[/quote]

You don't think Matt would decide to omit it out of fear of scandal? He would know that they would face the same problem that we face with the text.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 June 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1276443251' post='2128077']
Everything contained in the inspired books is part of God's message in that the human authors of holy Scripture wrote all and only what God inspired them to write.
[/quote]

Why couldn't it be argued that God inspired them to write truths? He would therefore be inspiring every word (inasmuch as the activity of the inspiration is directed toward the scribing of words for the sake of the intended message), while allowing their human limitations - and human role of true co-authorship - to be manifested. "All and only what God inspired them to write" would thereby refer to the inerrant truths of salvation history and theology.

How is this blasphemous heresy? It speaks nothing ill of God, only of the human limitations of language and the limitations of the humans themselves in their genuine role of true co-authorship. Nor does it deny the inerrancy of Scripture or the inspiration present in the scribing of every word.

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='13 June 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1276449929' post='2128114']
You don't think Matt would decide to omit it out of fear of scandal? He would know that they would face the same problem that we face with the text.
[/quote]
of course not. My thought processes are rooted in faith or if they are not I hope they will be. Faith roots itself in the mind. The mind is a base for the infused virtue of faith. So I work (or try too work) in the belief in the total inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. That is my point of departure. That verse of Mark is a great test of Faith. It is a very difficult problem to be worked out in favor of inspiration and inerrancy for the glory of God and his Son Jesus Christ, who surely never erred, nor inspired a Sacred Writer to err in what they intended to express even if they seem like contradictions or errors to us limited and fallen humans, who are nothing; and who are guilty and should be ashamed of our moral, physical and metaphysical evils before God.

BTW I came up with a new and original interpretation of the verse of Psalm 92 (93): 3. There are two meanings to that verse and one is scientific in an eschatological sense.

[MithLuin]

George MacDonald had some things to say about [i]studying[/i] theology rather than living it. He's not Catholic, and his perspective is distinctly Protestant, but here is some of what is written in his book [i]Donal Grant[/i] (or, I must admit, the abridged version [i]The Shepherd's Castle[/i] - the Scottish dialect of the original is a bit much for me!) It's a conversation between Lady Arctura and the title character, who is a teacher (not a minister), the tutor of her young cousin.

[quote]"If it was as bad as that," said Donal, "the shield of God's presence must have been over you."

"How glad I should be to think so! But we have no right to think so till we believe in Christ...and...it is a terrible thing to say -- I don't know that I believe."

"Whoever taught you that will have to answer for teaching a terrible lie," said Donal.

"I know He makes His sun to shine and His rain to fall upon the good and the bad, but that is only of this world's things."

"Are you able to worship a God who will give you all the little things he does not care much about, but will not give you help to do the things he wants you to do, but which you do not know how to do?"

"But there are things He cannot do till we believe."

"That is very true. But that does not say that God does not do all that can be done for even the worst of men to help them believe. He finds it very hard to teach us, but He is never tired of trying. Anyone who is willing to be taught of God will be taught, and thoroughly taught by Him."

"I am afraid I am doing wrong in listening to you, Mr. Grant. I do wish what you say might be true, but are you not in danger - you will pardon me for saying it - of presumption? How could all the good people be wrong?"

"[b]Because the greater part of the teachers among them have always set themselves more to explain God that to obey Him. The gospel is given not to redeem our understandings, but our hearts; that done, and only then, our understanding will be free.[/b] If the things be true which I have heard from Sunday to Sunday in church since I came here, then the Lord brought us no salvation at all, but only a change of shape to our miseries. It has not redeemed you, Lady Arctura, and never will. Nothing but Christ himself for your very own teacher and friend and brother, not all the doctrines about him, [b]even if every one of them were true,[/b] can save you."

"But how should men know that such is not the true God?"

"If a man desires God, he cannot help knowing enough of Him to be capable of learning more. His idea of Him cannot be all wrong. But that does not make him fit to teach others all about Him -- only to go on to learn for himself."

"But you must allow that God hates and punishes sin - and that is a terrible thing."

"It would be ten times more terrible if he did not hate and punish it. Do you think Jesus came to deliver us from the punishment of our sins? He would not have moved a step for that. The terrible thing is to be bad, and all punishment is to help to deliver us from it, nor will it cease till we have given up being bad. God will have us good."[/quote]

Prior to this conversation, they were discussing drugs, and after it, poetry. It's part of a novel, not a book on theology. But I think it puts in very simple terms the idea that to know God and to love God...is to obey Him. Do that, and the knowledge works out for itself eventually. 'Faith seeking understanding' is still the best approach to theology studies. Also, it's important to remember that the Truth will set you free, and that Jesus is the Truth.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='13 June 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1276450464' post='2128117']
Why couldn't it be argued that God inspired them to write truths? He would therefore be inspiring every word (inasmuch as the activity of the inspiration is directed toward the scribing of words for the sake of the intended message), while allowing their human limitations - and human role of true co-authorship - to be manifested. "All and only what God inspired them to write" would thereby refer to the inerrant truths of salvation history and theology.[/quote]

By supporting the idea that the inspiration of holy Scripture only extends to matters of faith and morals, you are supporting an idea expressly condemned by the Church.

"For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 20)

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='13 June 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1276450464' post='2128117']
How is this blasphemous heresy? It speaks nothing ill of God, only of the human limitations of language and the limitations of the humans themselves in their genuine role of true co-authorship. Nor does it deny the inerrancy of Scripture or the inspiration present in the scribing of every word.
[/quote]

It is certainly heresy to claim that there are errors in the divinely inspired sacred text.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Resurrexi

[kafka]

God worked with the limitations and fallen natures of the Sacred Writers. That is the unique gift of inspiration. The charism guided them to express truths with no exception. The errors have always come from the fallible, fallen and limited interpretors thinking the Sacred Writer is literally or figuratively referring to this or that when in fact they are not. Everything in Scripture is accurate. Everything perfect in the sense that God willed what they wrote and God cannot will error for he is truth. Scripture cannot be broken. Not one iota. To use a modern figure of speech every T is crossed and every i is dotted:

"For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, "except sin,"[31] so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error."

Divino Afflante Spiritu n. 37

This is why I like the Abiathar problem so much. Christ taught it. Mark under inspiration did not err. It is no figure of speech, it is a very straightforward assertion, so either you accept inerrancy or you do not. And if you do the problem has to be worked out by closely examining many Old Testament passages with faith, reason, speculative and creative thinking, and even then one's explanation is fallible. Yet the bottom line is that Jesus, the Son of God had additional not to mention precise and accurate information directly from his Divine Nature. His human nature learned directly from His Divine Nature presumably through prayer. All those times he escaped into the hills to spend nights in prayer preparing for his wondrous miracles and teachings. It is awesome.

I just read a modern Catholic interpreter's explanation of Abiathar in Mark. Sadly, he is off target in his interpretation even though he seems to acknowledge inerrancy. He reasons that since Christ was like us in all things except sin, his memory could have been faulty. He thinks Christ read the Old Testament and remembered incorrectly! Absurd. Sin includes the effects of sin, including the fallen tendencies and imperfections of concupiscence which makes it difficult to learn and retain memories, truths, realities, etc. Christ did not have a fallen human nature. Though his human nature is limited; everything he taught and said was true without exception. He was infallible and inerrant. He probably did not retain each and every sense memory. He would have purged anything not useful in his memory, but that is different from asserting an error because of a faulty memory.

Yet it is clear to me he learned about Abiathar directly from his Divine Nature. Here is another example:

1 Kings
{18:1} After many days, the word of the Lord came to Elijah, in the third year, saying, “Go and show yourself to Ahab, so that I may grant rain upon the face of the earth.”

OT says in the third year.

Luke
{4:25} In truth, I say to you, there were many widows in the days of Elijah in Israel, when the heavens were closed for three years and six months, when a great famine had occurred throughout the entire land.

Christ says 3.5 years. More precision.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' date='13 June 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1276476684' post='2128339']
God worked with the limitations and fallen natures of the Sacred Writers. That is the unique gift of inspiration. The charism guided them to express truths with no exception.
[/quote]
with no exception even though the Sacred Writers have limited and fallen human natures.