Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Catholic Church Representative Admits to Fiction in Gospels

Expand Messages
  • Silts
    Got this from another forum... Gospels authored by non-witnesses and creatively (euphemism for fiction) authored, observed the Roman Catholic clergyman Raymond
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Got this from another forum...

      Gospels authored by non-witnesses and creatively (euphemism for
      fiction) authored, observed the Roman Catholic clergyman Raymond

      BROWN's Biography
      Brown was one of the first Catholic scholars in the United States to
      use the historical-critical method to study the Bible. In 1943,
      reversing the approach that had existed since Providentissimus Deus
      fifty years earlier, the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu expressed
      approval of historical-critical methods.
      He died at St. Patrick's Seminary, Menlo Park, California. Cardinal
      Mahony hailed him as "the most distinguished and renowned Catholic
      biblical scholar to emerge in this country ever" and his death, the
      cardinal said, was "a great loss to the Church."

      Brown's observations

      1) We must reject the thesis that the Gospels can be harmonized
      through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears several times to the
      Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee. Rather, "Variations in
      place and time may stem in part from the evangelists themselves who
      are trying to fit the account of an appearance into a consecutive
      narrative. Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance
      accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to
      reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.

      2) Brown explains that Matthew probably created fictional
      genealogical links back to Abraham and David also "to appeal to the
      mixed constituency of his [Matthew's] community of Jewish and Gentile
      Christians." As evidence that Jesus was really not a descendent of
      David at all, Brown points out that:
      There is not the slightest indication in the accounts of the ministry
      of Jesus that his family was of ancestral nobility or royalty. If
      Jesus were a dauphin, there would have been none of the wonderment
      about his pretensions. He appears in the Gospels as a man of
      unimpressive background from an unimportant village.
      Brown goes even further, calling into question the reliability of
      large sections of the New Testament. He encourages his readers to
      face the possibility that portions of Matthew and Luke "may represent
      non-historical dramatizations:"

      3) He stresses that Christian writings about virginal conception
      intend to reveal spiritual insights rather that physical facts.
      Because record of the virginal conception appears only in tow Gospels,
      and there only in the infancy narratives (which Brown suspects are
      largely fictional), the Catholic theologian tactfully concludes that
      "biblical evidence leaves the question of the historicity of the
      virginal conception unresolved." Brown mentions the possibility that
      "early Christians" might have imported a mythology about virginal
      conception from "pagan or [other] world religions," but never intended
      that that mythology be taken literally.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.