Shocking admissions by catholic theologian on the resurection and virgin birth


#1

lately i have been having doubts and unfortunately when I have doubts i end up trawling the internet and look up stuff which gives me more doubts especially with all the anti-christian stuff on the internet.

I came across this article by catholic theologian Reymond Brown simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm in which he says there are 2 resurrection appearance stories because it isn't a historical narrative. He suggest the pope does not believe in it Then he says the virgin birth was invented. I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.


#2

[quote="Civitate_Dei, post:1, topic:339449"]
lately i have been having doubts and unfortunately when I have doubts i end up trawling the internet and look up stuff which gives me more doubts especially with all the anti-christian stuff on the internet.

[/quote]

So stop -- really. Why do you want to deliberately look for stuff to fuel your doubts? Why not look for solid Catholic teaching instead?


#3

The man is not speaking from Catholic Dogma or tradition. He is, frankly. a heretic; someone who knows the truth of the Church and knowingly chooses to reject it. Pray for him, but pay him no mind.


#4

Raymond Brown was a very bright biblical scholar, but he says some things that --while not outright heretical -- can often lead the casual observer to infer some questionable ideas. This is one of those things.

As Agnes Therese said, if you are experiencing doubts, don't go surfing the internet for random articles that are probably only snippets of complex academic works that are taken out of context. Read the Catechism instead. :thumbsup:


#5

Once you find the truth the best way to cultivate it is with devotion to Mary. No human knows Jesus like Mary & She is more than willing to help you but you need to call on her.


#6

[quote="Civitate_Dei, post:1, topic:339449"]
lately i have been having doubts and unfortunately when I have doubts i end up trawling the internet and look up stuff which gives me more doubts especially with all the anti-christian stuff on the internet.

I came across this article by catholic theologian Reymond Brown simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm in which he says there are 2 resurrection appearance stories because it isn't a historical narrative. He suggest the pope does not believe in it Then he says the virgin birth was invented. I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.

[/quote]

It is Catholic dogma that scripture contains no error, and it is mortal sin to proclaim that it does contain error. Error would be something that would lead you astray from God, from his Christ, from eternal life with Him.

Read the Bible as if listening to a real person telling you things, and that person is fully truthful in trusting God and in working to lead you to Life in His Name. A real person may not say all the details the same way someone else would or may not give all the details, but they never are wrong in their goal, their intent.

Virgin birth, invented? All the disciples spent many years in Mary's presence; think about it. She doubtless answered all their questions about Jesus and about herself. Luke, who wrote most eloquently about her, we know to have been with the disciples, and much time with Paul. I firmly believe he sat down with her and asked her about this. He quotes her talks with Gabriel and with her cousin Elizabeth, and he describes what she was thinking or feeling. While a writer can invent thoughts and feelings, no writer can invent thoughts of Faith where there is no faith existing in the writer, and no writer with Faith will make up a teaching. The Apostles and all Christians since then know that the virgin birth is true, and it did happen, and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin whose name is Mary.

John Martin


#7

There's 7 billion people in the world. If you look around enough, you're going to find an 'expert' that believes such and such.


#8

Geza Vermes says in page 21 in the book, The Nativity: History and Legend, about Reymond Brown

the primary example of the position of having your cake and eating it

Brown's Birth Of The Messiah . . . Revisited

Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown's Theories


#9

“We find the genealogy of Jesus provided by the Gospels confusing. Who was Jesus’ paternal grandfather? (We notice that Matthew says that his grandfather was Jacob, but Luke says it was Heli). Also, we notice that Matthew declares that Jesus was separated from King David by only twenty-eight generations, but Luke’s list shows a forty-three generation separation. What does this contradiction mean?”

“The genealogical line linking Jesus and King David seems to pass through Jesus’ father. But since Jesus was the product of a virgin conception, then he does not share in his father’s Davidic ancestry. How is Jesus a descendent of David?”

(Quotes taken from the article)

I’d like to point out that this point, at least, was addressed in a thread somewhere in this forum. I know it’s here somewhere because I read it, and I hope someone can find it because I can’t. There’s also another link. It made reference to an explanation by an early Church Father about this apparent discrepancy.

I also realize how unhelpful “here somewhere” is.

I found one of it here


#10

There’s no big deal here and nothing new at all for the antichristians to have brought up; the cyncisim is flagrantly apparent, for example Pope Paul VI’s comment in no way suggests any doubt on his part of the historical truth of the ressurection, he says the history of the world turned on that event; and that, his comment, is historically true and historically provable. Nothing to get depressed about, let them have the depression, it belongs to them.


#11

[quote="agnes_therese, post:2, topic:339449"]
So stop -- really. Why do you want to deliberately look for stuff to fuel your doubts? Why not look for solid Catholic teaching instead?

[/quote]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Bingo.png

Yet I know what the OP is going through. Sometimes you DON'T go looking for arguments against the Church but for insights. And then run across a lettered Catholic Theologian speaking very authoritatively - yet giving answers that would rate a red check mark from Sister in a first grade Catechism class. :shrug:

http://sr.photos3.fotosearch.com/bthumb/CSP/CSP314/k3143139.jpghttp://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/CSP/CSP992/praying-nun_~k12964459.jpg


#12

[quote="Civitate_Dei, post:1, topic:339449"]
lately i have been having doubts and unfortunately when I have doubts i end up trawling the internet and look up stuff which gives me more doubts especially with all the anti-christian stuff on the internet.

I came across this article by catholic theologian Reymond Brown simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm in which he says there are 2 resurrection appearance stories because it isn't a historical narrative. He suggest the pope does not believe in it Then he says the virgin birth was invented. I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.

[/quote]

Raymond Brown isn't the best source for faithful Catholic teaching. Read better stuff, like Pope Benedict XVI.


#13

I do not know or read this "theologian", but would the apostles and their followers have willingly died, been tortured, etc... for something they KNEW was not real??? No, they saw Him after His Resurrection, felt His hands, and spoke to Him, otherwise they surely wouldn't have been willing to die for Him, trusting that they would be with Him after death! As for the Virgin Birth, this was spoken of hundreds of years before His birth, and Luke certainly did interview the Blessed Virgin -- too much detail in the Scriptures that only she would have been able to tell to him! Also, in several of her appearances (whether you believe in them or not) she told the individual visionaries that she was indeed a Virgin at His birth, and remained Virgin until her death. As to the "brothers" of Jesus, I studied Hebrew (old form in which the Old Testament was written) and the word translated as "brothers" in English means "kinsman" -- a close relative, usually a cousin, nephew, etc.. The same word is used for "cousin", "kinsman" and the root comes from "relative, close". About the Pope not believing in either of these, he most certainly does! Write to the Vatican and ask, you'll get an answer, though it may take a month or more to receive the response.

I agree, stop going through the Internet for answers (except for Catholic Answers), speak to your priest about your doubts, and read the Scriptures and the Catechism! That's where you'll find your honest answers. Going frequently to Mass will also help.

If you suffer from depression (a true illness), perhaps a doctor can also help. If it is just doubts and resulting depression regarding your faith, see the paragraph just above!

God bless you and help you to find peace and faith!

judynurse


#14

[quote="John_Martin, post:6, topic:339449"]
It is Catholic dogma that scripture contains no error, and it is mortal sin to proclaim that it does contain error. Error would be something that would lead you astray from God, from his Christ, from eternal life with Him.

Read the Bible as if listening to a real person telling you things, and that person is fully truthful in trusting God and in working to lead you to Life in His Name. A real person may not say all the details the same way someone else would or may not give all the details, but they never are wrong in their goal, their intent.

Virgin birth, invented? All the disciples spent many years in Mary's presence; think about it. She doubtless answered all their questions about Jesus and about herself. Luke, who wrote most eloquently about her, we know to have been with the disciples, and much time with Paul. I firmly believe he sat down with her and asked her about this. He quotes her talks with Gabriel and with her cousin Elizabeth, and he describes what she was thinking or feeling. While a writer can invent thoughts and feelings, no writer can invent thoughts of Faith where there is no faith existing in the writer, and no writer with Faith will make up a teaching. The Apostles and all Christians since then know that the virgin birth is true, and it did happen, and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin whose name is Mary.

John Martin

[/quote]

John, what the Church actually teaches is that the Scriptures are without error with regard to matters of salvation. The things God wanted in the Scriptures for the sake of our salvation are without error. The church is silent on matters of historical or scientific accuracy.

That scripture is inerrant on matters of salvation is clearly stated in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.

There are many historically and scientifically accurate facts in the Bible but that isn't its point. The point of scripture is salvation, not history or science, and the Church does not teach that the Bible is with or without error in matters of science or history. The Church only teaches that the Bible is without error in matters of salvation.

-Tim-


#15

[quote="Civitate_Dei, post:1, topic:339449"]
. . . I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.

[/quote]

Perhaps this is the beginning of true faith.

You are easily swayed because you are not connecting with the Source of Truth - the Holy Spirit.

I would recommend prayer and participation in the mass; stick with it in spite of these negative influences that would cause you to fall into spiritual ruin.

In the end, as stated in John 6:67 So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?" 68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.


#16

[quote="Civitate_Dei, post:1, topic:339449"]
lately i have been having doubts and unfortunately when I have doubts i end up trawling the internet and look up stuff which gives me more doubts especially with all the anti-christian stuff on the internet.

I came across this article by catholic theologian Reymond Brown simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm in which he says there are 2 resurrection appearance stories because it isn't a historical narrative. He suggest the pope does not believe in it Then he says the virgin birth was invented. I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.

[/quote]

Also, to clarify, this article was not written by Raymond Brown, it was written about Raymond Brown by Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen.

Raymond Brown's writings are confusing enough to understand when you read them in context. Reading a selection of quotes out of context is not the best way to get at what he is saying. Brown denies some things about the historicity of certain portions of the New Testament. But -- as far as I know -- I have never seen him flatly deny the Resurrection (or the priesthood or the Virgin birth or any of the other things he speaks about in similar ways).

I would not expect to find in this article an accurate presentation of Catholic teaching nor even of Brown's writing.


#17

[quote="TimothyH, post:14, topic:339449"]
John, what the Church actually teaches is that the Scriptures are without error with regard to matters of salvation. The things God wanted in the Scriptures for the sake of our salvation are without error. The church is silent on matters of historical or scientific accuracy.

That scripture is inerrant on matters of salvation is clearly stated in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.

There are many historically and scientifically accurate facts in the Bible but that isn't its point. The point of scripture is salvation, not history or science, and the Church does not teach that the Bible is with or without error in matters of science or history. The Church only teaches that the Bible is without error in matters of salvation.

-Tim-

[/quote]

Tim,
I believe that is what I said: "Error would be something that would lead you astray from God, from his Christ, from eternal life with Him. "
That is the same as saying what you wrote: "the Bible is without error in matters of salvation."
??? so I don't understand what you intend to clarify ???

John Martin


#18

[quote="Civitate_Dei, post:1, topic:339449"]
lately i have been having doubts and unfortunately when I have doubts i end up trawling the internet and look up stuff which gives me more doubts especially with all the anti-christian stuff on the internet.

I came across this article by catholic theologian Reymond Brown simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm in which he says there are 2 resurrection appearance stories because it isn't a historical narrative. He suggest the pope does not believe in it Then he says the virgin birth was invented. I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.

[/quote]

Keep searching, the path to truth is a hard and rocky road, and do not let anyone tell you that you are wrong for seeking. And do not listen to those that would stop you from seeking truth in the name of heresy, they are the ones who live not in faith and truth but fear and sickness.

Keep reading and asking questions thats the only way for truth to be found. And for you to find real and lasting faith. :thumbsup:


#19

This is NOT an article by Raymond Brown. This is an article in from a Jewish website which purports to interpret what Raymond Brown says. The purpose of this article is to attack Christianity and takes great liberties with what was actually said and what they claim is being said.


#20

[quote="Civitate_Dei, post:1, topic:339449"]

I came across this article by catholic theologian Reymond Brown simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm in which he says there are 2 resurrection appearance stories because it isn't a historical narrative. He suggest the pope does not believe in it Then he says the virgin birth was invented. I read this stuff then I get really depressed and do not know what to believe.

[/quote]

I can't imagine it would be too, too shocking to hear a theologian give these thoughts, since many modern historians and NT experts have been offering the same ideas for decades...and, after all, many of the early "church fathers" debated them for the first three or four centuries, too.
So what you post has been in debate for thousands of years.

Mary's perpetual virginity, for example:
Many in those first centuries accepted the teaching that Mary was a virgin via the gospels when she conceived Jesus, but did not think it was a "perpetual" virginity because of the mention of Jesus' siblings in the gospels...and also, the interpretation of Matthew 1:25 that Joseph didn't know Mary "until" she had Jesus, etc.

Early Christian apologist Tertullian, early Christian author Helvidius, and Catholic theologian Eunomius of Cyzicus believed that Mary and Joseph had a "regular" marriage after Jesus was born, and that James, Joses, Jude, and Simon were Jesus' siblings and Mary and Joseph's sons together.

Wide support for the doctrine of perpetual virginity was not established until the 4th Century, I think, as per several religion texts.
And then, as you know, support fell away from that doctrine with the protesting Christian churches several centuries later.

But...issues like this one-- and the ones covered in the link you provided -- have long been debated ever since Christianity began taking shape as it's own religion and not just an offshoot of Judaism...as the followers formed the religion's own doctrines in those first few centuries.

For many...Jesus was not accepted to be related to David, as your link explains, because they were not blood related. And factual discrepancies in the Christian canon, mentioned in the link you posted, lead to other questions and doubts.

Since we really have no concrete way to confirm much, I imagine these ideas will continue to debated among the faithful vs. the historians, scientists, archeologists, etc.

For a little while longer, anyhow.

.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.