A Few Questions...

[rkwright]

I ran into one of my high school religion teachers who taught Church history to high school seniors. I took the class 4 years ago, but a few things he said were somewhat 'stuck' in my memory. I wrote to him and asked him to go over his position once more just to clarify. Now I must also say that the whole reason for me discussing this with him was a general 'distrust' of his account of Church history.

Anyways the three questions were about the infancy narrative, and the aramaic translations of a few words. I'd like input from some of our scholars here on his take on it. Something just doesn't sit right with me

[quote]the three things you mentioned all fall into this category and my discussion of them was to make people think! ...to realize that a person's faith is more than just words, documents
the question of Luke (also Matt.) and the census: the question was: Was Jesus born in Bethlehem? is it vital to one's faith that He was? (it shouldn't be) people, sometimes, get so involved in the stories and base a strong dedication (faith?) in them that when they find out something not true or negative or questionable, they "fall away"
there is not concrete evidence that Caesar was doing a census at the time that Jesus was actually born. so what does that mean? nothing terribly significant. it could mean that the Holy Family did not go to Bethlehem and thus Jesus was born in Nazereth. or it could mean they went to Bethlehem but not for the stated reason---maybe they went because the Angel instructed Joseph to go to "fulfill the prophecy" (Micah and Isaiah) as stated in Matthew
the point is that where Jesus was born was not significant--none of the writers that talk about it
were there--the Christmas story did not become an important part of the faith until the 4th century--the crucifixtion, resurrection (through the Eucharist) was the focus

the Barabbas question: Aramaic is a dead language but the basis for most Arabic languages
Jesus (and some of the people--a minority) spoke Aramaic. again, the story of Barabbas comes into play much later in time; thus, no personal witnesses. seems strange that the Romans, who cared little and knew less about the Jews and their traditions would have a tradition of releasing a captive to the Jews. a group of scholars who are studying Aramaic raised the "possibility" of a different interpretation of the "story" that was passed on orally (that is a key)
20th century scholars have claimed that the words/word/phrase "Barabbas" might not have been a person but a call to release Bar (Son) Abba (father) us (us)--in other words, was the crowd callying for the release of a person or "the Son of the Father" (Jesus). which seems more likely?

3rd, the Eye of the Needle question: this come down to translation--the Greek translates as
"The Eye of the Needle" (roughly) a later English translation (from the Latin) printed it as "The Eye of a Needle"---literal translation of that creates an impossibility
translation of the other accompanies a legend/myth/tradition about an opening in the wall called
"the eye of the needle"--a camel, to go through with trading goods on his back had to go to his
knees to pass through; thus, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to heaven. one can interpret that as an impossibility or as a measure of faith and
social justice. it means, thus, that the rich man will not take his riches to heaven and to get there as a rich man he must "get down on his knees" just as any other prayful person--some literalist have taken the phrase to mean that a rich person cannot go to heaven---seems rather implausable considering Jesus' explained path to heaven[/quote]

Edit: I should say please excuse his poor grammar... maybe...

Edited June 29, 2007 by rkwright

[abercius24]

[Not an official phatmass scholar (if that is necessary for answering within this forum): ]

I've heard of the last explanation from other evangelists and apologists. I seem to remember reading one of the Church Fathers speak on the subject, too (maybe Irenaeus or Polycarp?). The other ideas seem to be an attempt at sensentionalistic scholarship (aka Dan Brown territory). The whole point in having faith is to trust God. What good is "faith" if you believe without trusting? And how do you know it is God you are believing in if you can't trust his words (his revelation) or be astrounded by His miracles?

[aalpha1989]

i've also herad the last explanation from a priest. the other two i'm not sure about though. we'll wait for the smart peopel to get a hold of this thread ....

[rkwright]

bump

[Dismas]

I have only heard of the third one in my "Color, Cut and Draw" class. That alone sends warning flags. Honestly, it's a minor miracle that I'm still Catholic after the trauma.

[Era Might]

[quote]Was Jesus born in Bethlehem? is it vital to one's faith that He was? (it shouldn't be) people, sometimes, get so involved in the stories and base a strong dedication (faith?) in them that when they find out something not true or negative or questionable, they "fall away"[/quote]
The integrity of Sacred Scripture is absolutely vital to the Catholic faith because each book was inspired by the Holy Spirit, who cannot be the author of error. The Second Vatican Council reaffirms the Church's faith in the historical accounts of the Gospels:

[quote]Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

...

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. 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).

--Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Verbum"[/quote]
See also Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Letter "Divino Afflante Spiritu":

[quote]When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

...

Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden "either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred," since divine inspiration "not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church."[/quote]
The birth of Christ in Bethlehem is particularly important, because it involves the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. The Gospel of St. Matthew uses this to show that Christ is the Messiah:

[quote]When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet: 'And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.'"

--Matthew 2:3-6[/quote]
St. Matthew says specifically that "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king." His account was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so we must receive it as true.

[rkwright]

thanks Era and all for the responses...

Era just wondering... do you know off the top of your head where to find all this?? I am amazed!