Wed 23rd Jul 2014 | Last updated: Tue 22nd Jul 2014 at 14:13pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Benedict XVI’s third book on Jesus to be published before Christmas

By on Friday, 21 September 2012

Copies of Benedict XVI's second volume on display at a bookshop in Rome (CNS)

Copies of Benedict XVI's second volume on display at a bookshop in Rome (CNS)

The third volume of Pope Benedict XVI’s book Jesus of Nazareth should be published before Christmas, the Vatican has said.

The volume, focusing on the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s infancy and childhood, will be the third and final volume in the series of books the Pope has written “to make known the figure and message of Jesus”, the Vatican said in a statement today.

The statement announced a Vatican publishing house agreement with the Italian publisher Rizzoli to handle sales of the rights to the book in languages other than Italian and the German original.

Herder, the Pope’s longtime German publisher, will handle the original German-language text.

The Vatican’s plan is to release the book simultaneously in the world’s major languages, including English, in time for Christmas.

The first volume of Jesus of Nazareth, covering the period from Jesus’s baptism to his Transfiguration, was published in 2007. The second volume, looking at his passion and death, came out in 2011.

  • JabbaPapa

    There was nothing new or strange about what His Holiness said.  There was no gaffe.

    Actually, there was — because no theologian can teach the lesser of two evils as if it could be an acceptable doctrine.

    The lesser of two evils is an evil.

    His gaffe was that he was speaking as a priest, instead of properly curbing his speech to the fact that he was speaking in public in the person of the Holy Father.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    I note that neither my friend Jabba nor Sweetjae nor anyone else are able to argue coherently on the very points I have made, but adopt a critique based on claims about my own “heresy” or “schism”.

    Laughable. Jabba writes, “Please, dear Benedict, DON’T let your Faith be contaminated by these Errors and false doctrines”. I have no intention of doing so, Jabba – that’s why I and many other Catholics are increasingly speaking out against the tidal wave of heterodox opinion coming from the mouths and pens of those who are our shepherds. Or should be our shepherds. Funnily enough, the Holy Father has an attitude to others much more charitable than your own. Noting on his first book on Jesus that the opinions therein expressed are most certainly not part of the Magisterium in any way, he expressly says anyone is free to disagree or criticize what he has written.I have taken up his offer, because I DO indeed disagree with some of the opinions he has written, and not only in that book. Why? Because they flatly contradict the Catholic Faith, that’s why.Your job is to show me that I am wrong. Accusing me of “schism” or “heresy” isn’t the way to do it when it is not me responsible for the doctrinal innovations of the Revolutionaries, of whom the current Pope is assuredly one. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Jabba has written a very long post which starts by quoting my own words, “In brief, Benedict XVI ascribes the actual writing of the Gospel of St. John to “presbyter John”.

    He then goes on to say,  “One google search is sufficient to debunk this preposterous notion”.

    Well, it’s not such a preposterous notion dear Jabba. How do I know? Because the Pope’s own words (!) are as follows:

    “There seem to be grounds for ascribing to “Presbyter John” an essential role in the definitive shaping of the Gospel … I entirely concur with the conclusion that Peter Stuhlmacher has drawn from the above data. He holds ‘that the contents of the Gospel go back to the disciple whom Jesus (especially) loved. The presbyter understood himself as his transmitter and mouthpiece’. In a similar vein, Stuhlmacher cites E. Ruckstuhl and P. Dschullnigg to the effect that ‘the author of the Gospel of John is, as it were, the literary executor of the favourite disciple”. 

    i.e., that Presbyter John wrote the Gospel. 

    The Pope is attempting in this section to show us that the Gospel of St. John, crucial for Christ’s Divinity, goes back to St. John himself, but in adopting the tools of the historicist school ALREADY CONDEMNED by the Magisterium opens himself up to the charges I have made, which are FACTUAL. 

    Or do YOU Jabba also find yourself able to consign Pope St. Pius X’s judgements to oblivion?

    You can’t have it both ways.

  • JabbaPapa

    I note that neither my friend Jabba nor Sweetjae nor anyone else is able to argue coherently on the very points I have made

    !!!!!!!!!

    I have treated all of your points one by one.

    Noting in his first book on Jesus that the opinions therein expressed
    are most certainly not part of the Magisterium in any way, he expressly
    says anyone is free to disagree or criticize what he has written.

    I very nearly made exactly the same point myself — but you have gone much further than that, haven’t you, by disagreeing with and attacking a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ; and calling the Pope “heterodox”.

    Your job is to show me that I am wrong.

    Then at least do one the courtesy of seriously addressing my very clear objections to your statements instead of just dismissing them so off-handedly.

  • JabbaPapa

    I can’t help it if you’re not reading the Pope’s words closely enough.

    The Pope says that :

    1) He *personally* agrees with Peter Stuhlmacher’s conclusion that regardless of whom the physical “author” of the Gospel might be, the Gospel is in ANY case provided by the Apostle himself (whether directly or by the proxy of a literary executor)

    2) He then states — completely separately, and NOT providing this with the agreement in question — that a “similar” theory has been proposed by E. Ruckstuhl and P. Dschullnigg.

    Otherwise, no the “tools” of the historical method have never been condemned, I’ve no idea where you get that strange idea from. Pope Pius X in fact condemns the historical method of the Modernists.

    Central to these methods, as clearly described in Pascendi Dominici Gregis is the desire to divorce the Divinity of Christ from History — which is quite plainly the exact opposite of the Pope’s opinions here !!!

    Pope Pius X again :

    We will add that We deem worthy of praise those who with full respect for tradition, the Holy Fathers, and the ecclesiastical magisterium, undertake, with well-balanced judgment and guided by Catholic principles (which is not always the case), seek to illustrate positive theology by throwing the light of true history upon it.

    Neither History nor the tools of historical methodology are condemned — they are extolled provided that they concern themselves with Truth, not falsehoods.

    Bad history is condemned, good History is praised.

    What has been condemned are the *Errors* of the School of Modernist historico-critical Bibliology.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    In THIS case (the authorship of the Gospel of St. John) the Magisterium judged. Benedict XVI has set that judgement aside. 

    Do you deny this?

  • JabbaPapa

    The Pope has very clearly limited his own opinions to the question of who authored the Epistles.

    He states that Stuhlmacher cites E. Ruckstuhl and P. Dschullnigg to the effect that ‘the author of the Gospel of John is, as it were, the literary executor of the favourite disciple” — that is to say, this is the opinion of E. Ruckstuhl and P. Dschullnigg.

    Dear Benedict, I think that you’re probably not fully aware of what the phrase “literary executor” actually means in practical terms.

    It refers to somebody writing under the direct personal supervision of an author.

    The authorship of literary works provided is attributed to the person signing the final manuscript and publishing it in his name, in this case, the Apostle John.

    Pope Benedict is here, in fact, affirming that the Gospel of John was authored by the Apostle John.

    What he’s actually suggesting is that the Apostle John *may* have produced his Gospel by means of dictating to his literary executor, who then put this Gospel into shape under the Apostle’s personal supervision, and that this literary secretary was (in this *theory*) coincidentally also named John.

    Even so, this is purely literary theory, and it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any form of Modernism at all !!!!

    It denies not a *jot* of the Faith and it denies not a *jot* of the Gospel !!!!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Sigh.

    The Magisterium ruled that St. John was the actual redactor of the Gospel. 

    In 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger sets the rulings of the previous Magisterium on several vital matters aside in a paragraph.

    He then concurs that it’s a “literary executor” who wrote St. John’s Gospel some time later (and again, on totally, not probably, unverifiable and flimsy evidence). 

    If one can make it up as he goes along on a matter as seemingly peripheral as this, you can re-cast the entire Faith. 

    Which is what has actually happened over the last fifty years.

  • Sweetjae

    Read their documents, dear Benedict, they refer to the Catholic Church headed by Peter not Mr. Carter nor Williamson!

  • Sweetjae

    Bearing false witness to the Vicar of Christ!

  • Sweetjae

    We are not talking about the musings of the Pope here but rather teaching authority of a duly convened Council of the Catholic Church-VII which SSPX refuse obedience to!

  • Sweetjae

    Exactly, right between the eyes! Hey Jabba thanks for defending the only representative of Jesus Christ on earth, continue the good works, why not extend your Ecumenism to a blog named “Catholic Truth Scotland”, there are a handful of lost sheeps there that think they are better than the Magisterium and the Church.

  • JabbaPapa

    The Magisterium ruled that St. John was the actual redactor of the Gospel.

    Where ?

    He then concurs that it’s a “literary executor” who wrote St. John’s Gospel some time later

    No he doesn’t, he agrees with the position that this literary executor, IF the theory were historically accurate, would NOT remove authorship of the Gospel from the Apostle.

    If one can make it up as he goes along on a matter as seemingly peripheral as this, you can re-cast the entire Faith.

    You will first need to demonstrate that Catholics must believe de fide the Gospel of John to have been physically written by the hand of the Apostle John, which I SERIOUSLY doubt that the Magisterium has taught at any point in its history, because up to the 18th century or thereabouts the modern concept of the “author” never even existed, but as soon as this concept came into being, the authorship of that Gospel was questioned.

    Meanwhile, Pope Benedict positively affirms the authorship of John, while you are making things up out of thin air as concerns his opinions, and falsely accusing him of imaginary sins, that do not even concern the Faith in any meaningful manner at all.

  • Sweetjae

    Nice specially the last sentence. So for Mr. Carter the Divine Inspiration should only come from and must be signed by the main authors themselves. Well, the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke himself, a doctor and secretary of St. Paul, the real author of the Gospel of Luke.

  • Sweetjae

    Meaning St. Luke heard firsthand the lessons from his boss, St.Paul when he penned the Gospel of Luke.

  • Sweetjae

    Bullseye! This reminded me of a famous brilliant Reformed Biblical scholar named Bart Erhman who claim for his own good that since the original manuscript of the Gospels can not be found and what we really have are just copies of the original which has undergone extensive manual writing translation by monks and clergy of the early Church which found to have added some words to the original text thus “tainted” the real meaning of the text. So in the end, he became an agnostic.

    Does the “taint” denies a jot of the Revealed Faith or the real meaning of the Gospel? Loudly NO! Same could be said of Benedict Carter.

  • Sweetjae

    Not all Marian Dogmas were held by the Early Fathers, there is no majority consensus. Even up to the Middle ages, the Angelic Doctor himself, St. Thomas deny the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Therefore, Marian Dogmas are doctrinal developments which centuries later were formally declared by the Living Authority of the Church in 1800′s.. The very same Authority that you certainly refuse and deny today!

  • Alan

    How on earth can it possibly matter, as far as our salvation is concerned, exactly who wrote the Gospel of St.John?  It has always been accepted as Holy Scripture, and the precise question of who actually wrote down the final trancript, while an interesting academic question, is ultimately irrelevant. 
    While you have accused me in the past of not being a “proper Catholic”, I am far more accepting of the Church as she is, and of Pope Benedict, than you seem to be.

  • guest

    In the UK, The first volume was published by Bloomsbury Publishing and the second by the Catholic Truth Society. http://www.cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/info_Do840.htmlStill waiting for news on the UK publishers of this third volume, but whoever prints it, it will surely be as moving and informative as its two predecessors.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    See the comments below about Revelation Alan.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Don’t seriously doubt it Jabba. First of all, it’s what the Church has always held. Secondly the Pontifical Biblical Commission ruled exactly this and the Syllabus condemns the proposition that St. John did not write it. 

    However much you wriggle, this Pope has set aside the ruling of the previous Magisterium on this and on many other questions. 

  • JabbaPapa

    Oh dear me Benedict, your accusation that the Pope has denied this reposes on a personal interpretation of your own.

    Again : the Pope has positively affirmed the authorship of the Gospel by the Apostle John.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The 1990 document?????

  • Alan

    I assume you refer to the teaching that Revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
    I really cannot see how this relates to who wrote any given book of the New Testament.  There are certain fundamental truths of Christian faith, but to suggest that one of those truths is that John’s Gospel was literally written by the Beloved Disciple, rather than perhaps by one of his followers, is absurd.  You may as well insist (perhaps you do) that it is an article of faith that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St.Paul, which used to be accepted, though nobody thinks it now.  Surely historical research on these matters is a legitimate activity?

  • brendan

    If a person is determined on a lifestyle of promiscuous sexual contact he may realize that his options are to spread about illness and death or to mitigate the spread of disease by using a condom.  Strange as it may seem to JabbaPapa, but many moral theologians do in fact believe that choosing the wrong of a condom over the wrong of spreading illness and death is a morally better choice.

  • Jon Brownridge

    To open a new can of worms…My favourite quote from a 10-year old: “Faith is when you believe something you know ain’t true”. Reading many of the comments with this article, I think he had a point. All four Gospels are collections of writings from many different authors, some of them preceding Jesus of Nazareth by more than a thousand years. The Rosetta Stone taught us this much at least. Why do we persist in closing our minds to the work done by Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Gerald Massey, and so many others?

  • JabbaPapa

    Several of Paul’s Epistles were physically redacted by Paul’s secretaries, under his active, hands-on supervision — I see no reason whatsoever to conclude that the state of affairs with the Epistle to the Hebrews should be any different to this general pattern.

    Second — Epistle to the Hebrews may have originally been written in Hebrew, so that the stylistic differences can also be explained that a) when you write in a different language, your style will necessarily change, and b) the version that we have would in this case be a translation, and the writing style of the translator rather than the author would be predominate.

    As for the Gospel of John, current research is dating it at about AD 65, which is well within the lifetime of this Apostle who is thought to have been both the youngest of the Twelve, and also to have lived until extreme old age.

    Pope Benedict has not denied, he has affirmed the authorship of the Gospel by the Apostle ; and this would (in his view) remain the case even IF, like Paul, he had a writing assistant.

    Finally, this whole brouhaha is COMPLETELY ANACHRONISTIC, because the notion of “the author” is a modern 19th-21st century concept, which is partially applicable also to the literature of late 15th to 19th centuries, and is of very little value at all concerning any literature which is mediaeval or earlier — because ALL literature of those periods should be assumed as having been collaborative, to a greater or lesser degree (and yes, there will be the occasional exception and literary works of those periods which are pure monographs).

    This is also a purely literary question, and anybody who thinks that it can be of any deeply important Scriptural import is somebody who has been concerning themselves overmuch with Protestant Bibliology.

  • JabbaPapa

    Again : the Pope has positively affirmed the authorship of the Gospel by the Apostle John.

    Your accusations against the Holy Father are groundless.

  • JabbaPapa

    This is not strange to me at all, given that I was characterising the Pope’s words as being those of a priest, not those of the Holy Father.

    One of the Holy Father’s main JOBS though is to defend the Doctrine of the Faith, which is dogmatic theology not moral theology — so that it is not his job to engage in these sorts of casuistics that belong, instead, to (indeed) the moral theologians, and to each individual priest.

    For EXACTLY the reasons that you provide, by the way.

  • Alan

    My point is that the question of the authorship of the NT books is completely irrelevant as far as Christian teaching, or our salvation, are concerned.  I am perfectly happy to accept the scholarly consensus if it concludes that the Gospel of X was not written by X, and I resent any suggestion that this is a “Protestant” approach.  All of the NT is canonical, which is all we need to know. Actual authorship and dating may be interesting, but it is a side-issue.

  • JabbaPapa

    When you’re getting your theology from a 10-year-old, don’t expect that your ideas on the subject should be considered any otherwise than as childish.

    NOBODY has faith in anything that they know to be false.

  • JabbaPapa

    I am perfectly happy to accept the scholarly consensus if it concludes
    that the Gospel of X was not written by X, and I resent any suggestion
    that this is a “Protestant” approach.

    Then I’m sorry, you misunderstood !!

    I’m *agreeing* with you that the Scripture is what matters, not which particular individual was the one scratching out the letters !!!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The 1990 document from the CDF? Address this question please. 

  • Sweetjae

    There you go, I totally agree. If not then the gospels of Thomas and Magdalene should also be in the Canon of Scripture.

  • JabbaPapa

    What, your “essentialising the Magisterium” false reading ?

    Already dealt with, in my first (long) response.

  • Jon Brownridge

     “Out of the mouths of babes…” It is more serious than you suppose. ” NOBODY has faith in anything that they know to be false”, you say. Those words of wisdom appear to be self evident, but unfortunately they are belied by the words and behaviour of so many Christians – including Catholics. The authorship of the Gospels is a case in point. Both Matthew and Luke present a beautiful, poetic account of the Annunciation and the Nativity, yet a visit to the great temple of Luxor will yield not only a 3500-year old account of the same stories, but impressive depictions as well, including a beautiful Nativity scene complete with child in the manger, angels, shepherds, three wise men, and the star of Bethlehem over the cave. If Luxor is too far, try the British Museum where the Rosetta Stone is still on display and all this is fully explained. Clearly, Egyptian mythology is the origin of these stories. The Church has said little about this recently, but since about 1850 the official explanation of the Luxor scripts and images was that the devil had inspired the Egyptians to create them in order to confuse Christians two centuries later. I think we all want to believe whatever is true. We know Matthew and Luke did not write those gospels. Why do we profess to believe what we now know is definitely not true? I am not talking off the top of my head. I have spent a good chunk of my life studying these things, and my Ph.D. thesis decried the fact that we are still teaching falsehoods to our children, rather than teaching them to live the spirit of the Gospels through love, compassion, and justice.

  • Jon Brownridge

     Correction: “…to confuse Christians two MILLENIA later”.

  • JabbaPapa

    Oh yeah ???

    Here’s a short extract from your “same story” from Luxor :

    “She awoke because of the god smell and laughed at its majesty. He went to her immediately, he was inflamed in love for her. He let her see his
    god-shape, after he had come before her, so that she rejoiced at the sight of his perfection, and his love went into her body. The palace was then flooded with god smell, and everything smelled like the land of Punt.” … “The queen said to him, ‘My, how large your power is! … Your smell is gorgeous in every way!’ Then the majesty of this God did everything it wanted with her.”

    … hmmmmm …

    I wonder if anyone can spot any slight differences with the Nativity story ?

    I’ll just quote somebody else’s opinion instead of writing up one of my own :

    Richard Carrier :

    The expanded text at Deir el-Bahri elaborates on what these coy phrases mean, very clearly explaining that giant god penises are going into the female places they were intended to and the queen enjoys the hell out of it and is especially impressed by how big his member is (ah, I can see the Onion’s headlines now, “Queen Hatshepsut: First Woman Eroticist Carves Her Sexual Preferences in Stone; Rules Empire”). That, plus the other details, rule out any meaningful parallels between Luxor cult and Christianity. The only parallels that remain are paralleled in all Ancient Near Eastern religions of the time and Roman and Hellenistic religions afterward, and thus are not uniquely Egyptian at all.

    This is a common mistake too many make. They get stuck on one way of seeing the evidence that fits their preconceptions, then they go “Aha!” and claim causal influence (Why, surely the Christians just borrowed the nativity scene of Horus from Luxor!). But when their interpretation of the evidence is shown to be wholly wrong, they don’t abandon the idea but double down and refuse to let go of what they felt was so attractive that it “must” be true. But more importantly, they don’t try to figure out what the causal channel was or to find evidence of causal relation (because correlation is not enough, even when there is correlation). If they did, they would find that there is often no direct connection at all with what they were obsessing over originally; or that we must be agnostic about it, and not tout it as established.

    ———-

    I’ll simply add an extra point of my own, which is that these sorts of extremely wrongful methodological approaches that you seem to rejoice in are a product of bad 19th century to 1970s/1980s literary theory.

  • Jon Brownridge

     Yes, I do respect your convictions about these matters. But it’s too easy to dismiss other possibilities offhand. As you can imagine, I am well aware of both sides of the discussion regarding Egyptian/Christian connections. I agree the text you quote would hardly make a good Advent reading about the Annunciation, even in Latin! But that is the problem with translations. You will no doubt be aware of a plethora of apocryphal gospels, rejected by the Church in favour of the synoptic Gospels. If you have had an opportunity to examine these texts you will notice a great variety in detail. When translations go through a chain from Egyptian hieroglyphics, to Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to old English, to modern text, the format can be wildly different. Just as Shakespeare’s plays were “cleaned up”, so were the Gospel stories. As I have said, I certainly don’t want to believe something that is not true, but 50 years of intellectual pursuits have convinced me of the Gospels origin. At age 72 I am still open to new evidence, however. Respectful dialectic is the only way forward. Peace to you.

  • JabbaPapa

    Q : I wonder if anyone can spot any slight differences with the Nativity story ?

    A :

    Nope.

  • JabbaPapa

    it’s too easy to dismiss other possibilities offhand

    Who said anything about dismissing them “offhand” ???

    I’m dismissing this one because it’s patently absurd, as well as being an almost textbook example of late 19th century-20th century bad methodology.

    that is the problem with translations

    !!!!!!!!

    Sorry, assuming the truth of your claim as a basis for discussion is unacceptable.

    The stories are, in fact, so obviously and so blatantly DIFFERENT that claims that something has somehow shifted in translation can only be the product of a willful desire to believe in this absurdity.

    You will no doubt be aware of a plethora of apocryphal gospels

    One is unsurprised that you should be an enthusiast of these texts.

    I’ve read a few of them — their literary quality is generally speaking atrocious.

    The two most interesting ones are the so called proto-Evangelion of Joseph, because it’s an extremely early account of the Tradition of Joseph and Mary’s family life (and there is a theory that the only reason why it’s not in the canon is that it contains ZERO religious teachings), and the so-called “gospel” of Thomas, because even though the text is 100% unacceptable due to the heresies that it contains, it may be the rewriting of an older LOST text that actually recorded some of Christ’s teachings.

    Not that I’m saying the Q theory isn’t dead in the water.

    When translations go through a chain from Egyptian hieroglyphics, to Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to old English, to modern text, the format can be wildly different. Just as Shakespeare’s plays were “cleaned up”, so were the Gospel stories

    Sorry, this is an old theory about translations that the post-IT revolution scholarship has completely debunked.

    Such mutations and changes are observable in works of fictional literature and other non-serious works ONLY.

    Copies and translations of legal, or medical, or religious and other such serious literature are OTOH always extremely carefully made, with the desire to reproduce them as faithfully as possible — this is true throughout Antiquity, through the Middle Ages, and to this very day.

    This has been demonstrated by the far easier direct comparisons between texts that the computer processor and the internet have provided.

    The 19th century theory that you describe of the origins of the Bible has been completely abandoned, apart from by a diminishing number of scholars who remain intellectually or politically attached to the hermeneutics of the 1970s.

    Case in point :

    Respectful dialectic is the only way forward.

    1970s. “dialectic” is one of those giveaway words …

  • Jon Brownridge

     “The stories are, in fact, so obviously and so blatantly different”. I don’t think so. A virgin is impregnated by one of the Gods; she bears a son, a kind of God/Man referred to as the “Christos”; he grows to manhood and spends three years healing the sick and feeding the poor; He is put to death by the authorities but, no matter, He rises from the dead after three days and returns to the land of the Gods. Sound familiar? This story occurs time and time again over a 1500-year period before our “Christ” is born in Bethlehem. The vulgar details of some accounts are completely irrelevant. Stories passed on by word of mouth take on the idiosyncrasies of the story teller. You make many statements and assume that because you believe them they must be true. As I frequently reminded my Philosophy students, the truth value of a statement is totally independent of whether you believe it or not. I keep an open mind in the debate about the origins of the New Testament content, but I would have to say that all the research I’ve done on the topic seems to provide overwhelming evidence in favour of an Egyptian origin.

  • JabbaPapa

    The vulgar details

    Right — so not biased at all, are we then ?

    As I frequently reminded my Philosophy students … … but I would have to say that all the research I’ve done on the
    topic seems to provide overwhelming evidence in favour of an Egyptian
    origin.

    Right, so in other words you’re just another punter opinionating outside of your field of specialty.

    Philology and literary analysis are not philosophical disciplines.

    There is NO textual nor any other material evidence to support this absurd theory.

    Your philosophical a prioris do not constitute any manner of material evidence.

  • Jon Brownridge

     You have made it clear that you have no time for dialectic argument. That makes it difficult for me to have any kind of intellectual discussion with you. Your phrases like “Right, so in other words you’re just another punter opinionating…” along with an abundance of exclamation marks, unnecessary capitals, and other aggressive formats suggest a hysterical approach so often taken by those who are unable to extract themselves from a culture of magic and make believe. But if you are happy with that, I wish you all the best. Peace to you.

  • http://twitter.com/Furry_Aminal Furry Animal

    Your 10 year old friend is mistaken. Faith is not “when you believe something you know aint true”, but rather is trusting until given cause not to (as opposed to the standard of the Enlightenment, which tells us to refuse to trust until given cause to, by evidence). If you think that the Enlightenment stance is superior it means that you consider “innocent until proven guilty” to be a foolish position…..because holding people innocent, without requiring evidence, until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming, IS an act of faith.

  • JabbaPapa

    those who are unable to extract themselves from a culture of magic and make believe

    Your true agenda is unmasked.

    Just one more tedious modernist doing the rounds at CH blogs …

    (FYI I have in fact spent several years specifically studying a wide range of related topics, including comparative mythology, compared literature, textual mutation through copying and translation, etc etc — and I am unwilling to engage in a “dialectic” that isq based on such a blatantly false premise as you have presented. I’m just rejecting this theory of yours because it is very clearly based on false premises)

  • Rasssar

    The picture on the books on the lower shelf really doesn’t show him at his best. It looks nasty. Contrast it with the way he looks in the video to the right and you’ll see what I mean.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The CDF document in question flatly contradicts the previous Magisterium! So to which should a Catholic adhere? The prior one of course. 

  • Teitan2017

    Benedict Carter is absolutely correct; but, there is more – and it gets worse. Benedict XVI is denying the historicity and
    Divine inerrancy of the Gospels in gratuitously asserting that there were no
    animals…The Old Testament refers to the animals at the Nativity in both Isaiah
    and Habakuk.

    The Gospels: “…she laid him in the MANGER”…”you will
    find him laying in a manger.” – poor Saint Francis – ! The Fathers and Doctors
    of the Church – especially Saint Alphonsus – quote from the two Sources of
    Revelation copiously in their works [cf., "The Incarnation and Infancy of
    Our Lord Jesus Christ."] They are definite regarding the great symbolic
    meaning of the animals presence as well as the meaning of the manger: the
    animals symbolize fallen Man with all of his vices; the manger indicates that
    Christ intends to be our Food and Divine Remedy for these vices in the Most
    Holy Eucharist…for Benedict to dump all this is an inconceivable impiety. The
    Church infallibly teaches at Trent, Vatican I, AND VATICAN II – that the
    Scriptures taken together and in each and all of their parts – are inspired by
    the Holy Ghost. Admit one “officious lie” or erroneous assertion – and the
    whole edifice collapses. Benedict XVI is a Modernist who follows the
    historico-critical method of exegesis – which destroys inspiration at the
    roots.