As reported at Catholic News, the Vatican creche this year depicts a scene of Jesus to be born at home. Whether this is at home in Nazareth or Bethlehem, Pier Carlo Cuscianna, director of technical services for Vatican City, did not say. His silence indicates that this creche represents Jesus being born at home in Nazareth, not Bethlehem.
What a breath of fresh air. The conflicting infancy stories in Matthew and Luke that both have Jesus being born in Bethlehem are beautiful, but obviously false. They were written in the creative spirit of the authors to fulfill Old Testament prophesies, but at some point we need to dispel the myths of our faith, so that we can look more honestly at the Gospels to see who Jesus really was.
So bravo to Pier Carlo! You made my Advent. This may also be a continuing sign that Benedict is truly a person of scholarly honesty.
A Faithful Catholic
18 comments:
but obviously false. They were written in the creative spirit of the authors
Something which you can prove conclusively, of course...
Just read them Dad29. In Luke they are from Nazareth and go to Bethlehem for a "census." In Matthew they are from Bethlehem, have the baby at home, then go to Egypt. AND he was called Jesus of Nazareth for a reason.
Doesn't Matthew 2:1 begin "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem..."?
That was unclear.
If the accounts do not conflict on where Jesus was born, what's the basis of saying he must have been born somewhere else?
"The conflicting infancy stories in Matthew and Luke that both have Jesus being born in Bethlehem are beautiful, but obviously false. They were written in the creative spirit of the authors..."
Conflicting? Creative? I just read the two accounts. All they do is compliment each other. They include different details, but are not conflicting. I Think you just have a hard time believing that Christ actually fulfilled these prophecies. If Jesus didn't actually fulfill these prophecies, then who did or will? In any case, if Christ didn't actually fulfill these prophecies, then doesn't that make Jesus a little bit questionable, since, later on in the Gospels in the section about the road to Emmaus, he refers to his fulfillment of prophecy?
As far as arriving at a house in the Matthew story is concerned, the wise men didn't arrive at the moment of birth, but later, probably long after the shepherds
who have traditionally been recognized as the first to arrive. Isn't it probably, that after the spectacular events of the birth, someone, perhaps the inn keeper, would have allowed the Holy Family to stay in their home for some time after the born?
No--I want you to conclusively prove that "the authors" were "creative."
Your exegesis is flawed, as Terry deomonstrated.
So maybe you'll have a leg to stand on if you can prove that Luke or Matthew were "creative."
People like to use the word "complement," but how is it possible that Luke omits the massacre of the holy innocents or that Matthew omits that Jesus is the cousin of John the Baptist - because each author made it up! It's clear to the unbiased observer. How can Christians complain about the fundamentalism of many Muslims when they are biblical fundamentalists themselves?
Ohhhh...so YOU are the one who judges the "truth" of Scripture.
I thought Luther was dead!
And of course, there's that little problem called "tradition,"...
So why do you advertise yourself as a Catholic again?
Stuck in a job in a Catholic church and can't afford to be honest about it?
And I'm sure you noted today's remarks by the Pope--who said that the Birth occurred in Bethlehem.
Or did you miss that?
F.C., your response to Dad29 says you rely on the lack of corroboration between Matthew and Luke on some points as the basis for disbelieving those points. Both, however, say Jesus was born in Bethlehem. So, again, what's your basis for saying he must have been born somewhere else?
Is this a case of Chinese whispers? http://www.liturgy.co.nz/worship/matters_files/christmasnazareth.html
Over here, more commonly referred to as "Telephone".
(your post)
He is never referred to as Jesus of Bethlehem, but Jesus of Nazareth. Outside of the "creative" birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, there is never mention of Jesus coming from Bethlehem. John 7 is the only other place that mentions Bethlehem at all. And there the crowd states that the Messiah will be from Bethlehem, which means Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because Jesus is from Galilee and "the Messiah will not come from Galilee." But they were wrong, because he did come from Nazareth in Galilee.
If He's the Messiah, as you say, it seems more likely that it was God who was creative about where He was born, rather than Matthew and Luke.
We read that Jesus is born in Bethlehem and then lived in Nazareth. Now we'd say Nazareth was His home town, though he was a native of Bethlehem. Per the Gospels, the crowd was wrong, but about where He was born.
So both Mt and Lk state that JC was born in Bethlehem.
He was RAISED in Nazareth.
FC, looks like the "creativity" award goes to you--or the "box-of-rocks" award, whichever you prefer.
It is interesting that here and also in the history of the Church we soon find that it is much more comfortable to debate about the person of Jesus than about His mission and our part in it...
That's certainly no longer true, Anonymous, at least in the context of the time spent over the last few decades formulating and reformulating mission statements in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
Post a Comment