What Do You Think Of This Statement?

[cmotherofpirl]

"While the primary source material of the film (The Passion of the Christ) is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief."

What do you think of this statement ?

Is this true or false and why?

[Jake Huether]

Hogwash.

The Gospel writers were there. Even if they failed in memory a tad on minute details, the accounts are historically acurate.

It isn't like Genesis, where the story is written some odd thousand years later by someone who wasn't even there.

That would be like me writing an account of my childhood, and then someone saying that it is historically inaccurate.

Crazy.

[electricdisk]

Jake, Luke never met Jesus. He wrote his gospel from eyewitness accounts.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='electricdisk' date='Mar 3 2004, 05:28 PM'] Jake, Luke never met Jesus.  He wrote his gospel from eyewitness accounts. [/quote]
to go even further Luke's community wrote the actual Gospel from the [i]Quelle[/i] source. The historical St. Luke was the great Evangelist to the Syro-Phonecians.

[cmotherofpirl]

Q is a theory, not a fact.

Where would Luke learn about Jesus's birth, other than the Blessed Mother herself?

[IXpenguin21]

100% true.

Popes Leo XIII, Paul VI's encyclicals on Dei Verbum make it clear that scripture is purely a spiritual acount, not historical. It might be that history reveals to us things that the bible has stated, but the bible does not need history to justify it. (noah's age at death just might not have been how ever many hundred if years it says it was. it doesn't change what God intends to teach through the scripture. Jesus could've fallen 10 times on the way to Golgotha, but three were mentioned in the bible for a spiritual reason.)

the bible and history are different. always remember that.

people argue over creation (God) vs. evolution (science). this is not important because God doesn't not need science to prove that he exists for him to exist. They both do exist, and can both exist in the debate over creation vs. evolution.

the same agrument can be made w/ history, just insert "history" instead of "science"

[cmotherofpirl]

Dei Verbum
18. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(1)

19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, [u]that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven[/u] (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ's life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 3 2004, 06:25 PM']Q is a theory, not a fact.

Where would Luke learn about Jesus's birth, other than the Blessed Mother herself?[/quote]

The Blessed Mother was certainly in the area so it's probably true that she included her instruction and probably her Magnificat too in Luke's community, but the Q Source it's being taught as fact in a lot of places.

But all in all the placement of the Magnificat for example is something unique to Luke's community, and it probably meant something or had an impact to some aspect of the community in evangelizing the greek pagans and greek jews, but everything else's direct coorelation to Matthew is why Q makes so much sense.

I was taught that the reason Mary's Magnificat is in Luke because it sent a strong message to the Greek Jews who were emersed in a pagan culture about God's loyalty and fidelity to his covenant with the Jews, but if I'm wrong I'm sure one of the many Pm theologians will correct me

[cmotherofpirl]

Actually church history says Matthew was the first gospel and was written in Aramaic.

[cappie]

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.......

125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior".(Dei Verbum 18)

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."(DV19 Acts1:1-2)

2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed." (DV19)

3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus." (DV19)

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 3 2004, 09:18 PM'] Actually church history says Matthew was the first gospel and was written in Aramaic. [/quote]
I was taught it was Mark's Gospel written from the Christian community in Rome, and that he was a pupil of St. Peter and from this line of sucession became the founder of the early church community in Venice, but I'll check my notes - it's been years since I pulled my Source Criticism stuff out

[Donna]

To your question CMom:

False; poison.

Why?

[b]Lamentabili[/b]
[July 3, 1907]
St. Pope Pius X

[b]Errors of Modernists:[/b]

#24: An exegete is not to be reproved who constructs premises from
which it follows that[color=red][i] dogmas are historically false or dubious, provided
he does not directly deny the dogmas [/color]themselves.

#16: The narrations of John [color=red]are not properly history, but the mystical
contemplation of the Gospel[/i]; [/color]the discourses contained in his Gospel [color=red][i]are
theological meditations on the mystery of salvation, devoid of historical
truth.[/i][/color]

#3. From the ecclesiastical judgements and censures passed against free
and more learned exegesis, it can be gathered[i][color=red] that the Faith proposed by
the Church contradicts history[/color][/i], and that the Catholic teachings cannot in fact be reconciled with the truer origins of the Catholic religion.

Who made the statement?

[M.SIGGA]

lol I never answered your post and I absolutly disagree with it for what everyone has already posted (Donna in red was particularly noticeable )

[Donna]

[color=red]Red rules.[/color]



Donna drools.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='electricdisk' date='Mar 3 2004, 04:28 PM'] Jake, Luke never met Jesus.  He wrote his gospel from eyewitness accounts. [/quote]
Yeah, but it was eye witnesses. It wasn't like he had no idea about what the traditions and culture of the time were. How could it NOT be historically acurate.

Despite the previouse evidence posted by Cappie and Donna to the falsness of the topic question, it is just simple logic that it should be historically (as well as spiritually) acurate.



And to IX,

We cannot say much for Scripture in General terms, as far as being historically acurate or inacurate. Scripture, is comprised of 3 distinct types of accounts. The entire NT is pretty much historically accurate because they were written as letters / Gospels for the people of the time (and our time) by the people of the time. In the OT we find poetic and alagoric (as well as historica) accounts. Much of the OT was written thousands of years after the events described therein had happened.


So, while it is true that some of the Scriptures are not historically acurate, we cannot say the same for all Scripture, in particular the ones in question.

Edited March 4, 2004 by Jake Huether