 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Angie_Rivas1
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | Downey, USA |
| Posts: | 110 |
| First Name: | Angie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2008 02:55 am |
|
My younger sister asked me a question I am not sure I answered properly. Her question is if the church is so against magical stuff, how come the CC accepted these three magicians/wise men and gave them a special day? Why does the church seems to do "as it pleases" when it is convenient and then rejects similar things when it is not?
Angie
____________________
"Be not afraid" JPII
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5347 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2008 08:31 am |
|
Angie_Rivas1 wrote: My younger sister asked me a question I am not sure I answered properly. Her question is if the church is so against magical stuff, how come the CC accepted these three magicians/wise men and gave them a special day? Why does the church seems to do "as it pleases" when it is convenient and then rejects similar things when it is not?
From the NAB footnote: "Magi: originally a designation of the Persian priestly caste, the word became used of those who were regarded as having more than human knowledge. Matthew's magi are astrologers." Where does "magical stuff" play into this at all? They saw an astronomical phenomenum and came to investigate.
The feast does not celebrate the magi, but their recognition of Jesus as God, King, and Savior. And at no point in scripture does it say there were three, although that is the traditional number. We know there were a group of astrologers who saw a sign in the heavens that a new king was born, and came to investigate and pay him homage. And that's what Epiphany is all about: the newborn King, the Son of God, who would offer himself to save humanity.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
danica
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Centurion, Pretoria. , South Africa |
| Posts: | 33 |
| First Name: | Danica-Christine | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Dutch Reformed, Charismatic, AFM. Now Catholic for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 01:41 pm |
|
That was a brilliant answer, Rick! I've wondered about the Magi, as well.
You're great, as always!
CajunRick wrote: Angie_Rivas1 wrote: My younger sister asked me a question I am not sure I answered properly. Her question is if the church is so against magical stuff, how come the CC accepted these three magicians/wise men and gave them a special day? Why does the church seems to do "as it pleases" when it is convenient and then rejects similar things when it is not?
From the NAB footnote: "Magi: originally a designation of the Persian priestly caste, the word became used of those who were regarded as having more than human knowledge. Matthew's magi are astrologers." Where does "magical stuff" play into this at all? They saw an astronomical phenomenum and came to investigate.
The feast does not celebrate the magi, but their recognition of Jesus as God, King, and Savior. And at no point in scripture does it say there were three, although that is the traditional number. We know there were a group of astrologers who saw a sign in the heavens that a new king was born, and came to investigate and pay him homage. And that's what Epiphany is all about: the newborn King, the Son of God, who would offer himself to save humanity.
____________________
.:: True Devotion | Catholic Community ::.
http://christcatholic.proboards74.com
|
|
|
Parodyonlife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Corning, New York USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | NEW CATHOLIC!!! W( ) ( )T!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 05:55 pm |
|
"Matthew's magi are astrologers." Where does "magical stuff" play into this at all?"
This is a very common miss conception Astrologers search for magical changes in the sky and use signs to tell moods and so on. Astronomers are scientific studiers of our earths night sky. their is a HUGE difference astrology is in a sense magic belief in something other than God controling our universe. The belief in stars affecting our human and corporeal life. Is something not to take lightly.
John
Last edited on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 05:59 pm by Parodyonlife
____________________
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5347 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 06:18 pm |
|
Parodyonlife wrote: "Matthew's magi are astrologers." Where does "magical stuff" play into this at all?"
This is a very common miss conception Astrologers search for magical changes in the sky and use signs to tell moods and so on. Astronomers are scientific studiers of our earths night sky. their is a HUGE difference astrology is in a sense magic belief in something other than God controling our universe. The belief in stars affecting our human and corporeal life. Is something not to take lightly.
Trust me, I know the difference. 2000 years ago there were no astronomers as the science hadn't been invented (although some cultures had a considerable understanding of celestial mechanics). Astrologers charted the movement of astronomical objects believing they influenced events on earth. Today we know better, and astrology is no more than a parlor trick. But in Matthew's time, the magi were considered the equivalent of scientists, not magicians. That's why they are often called "Wise Men" and not magicians.
Scripture tells us a star came to rest over the cradle in Bethlehem which held our Savior. The magi saw "his star in the east" and came to worship him. Is it possible that a star "came to rest" over a cradle? Absolutely not. If it had, the entire vicinity would have been burnt to a cinder if the planet survived at all. But they didn't understand 2000 years ago that stars were distant suns. We must take the context of knowledge at the time into account when interpreting scripture, and that's why literal, fundamentalist interpretations often lead one astray.
So no, it's not a misconception. It's a difference of 2000 years. A physician of 2000 years ago would be seen today as a witch doctor at best. A thousand years from now, both our doctors and our astronomers will be seen as virtually illiterate.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Parodyonlife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Corning, New York USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | NEW CATHOLIC!!! W( ) ( )T!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
The Mesopatamians had a calendar that was more accurate then our current calendar. They new practical all the stars in the sky. Their were plenty of astronomers. Astrology was used to decide battles and such so magi would have been very influencial "Kings". They wouldnt have been astronomers i take the bible litiratly ^^
Last edited on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 06:36 pm by Parodyonlife
____________________
|
|
|
Jackie
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Jersey Shore, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Jackie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 07:02 pm |
|
The Mesopatamians had a calendar that was more accurate then our current calendar. They new practical all the stars in the sky. Their were plenty of astronomers. Astrology was used to decide battles and such so magi would have been very influencial "Kings". They wouldnt have been astronomers i take the bible litiratly
John, knew the stars as what? More accurate than what? It can only be compared with what was knowable 'at that time.' Two thousand years has alot more science behind it. And yes the battles may have been planned as to when they would take place (ie: on the first of the next full moon ect....) but I caution you with the capital letter in kings, it actually made me flinch. Now I am no "studier of the cosmos" and I will agree that the moon, with it's waxing and waning had it's meaning then as it does now, ask any woman and you'll get an ear full, but do not dismiss Rick's comment so quickly. He says he knows, I believe him!  Your last sentence is confusing me, explain yourself. Please  regards.....Jackie
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1627 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 07:11 pm |
|
The Church honors their devotion to Jesus: not any false teaching they may have espoused.
Astrology was still mixed up with astronomy, even in the 17th century. Galileo and Kepler (Catholic and Lutheran) were both highly involved in it. Doesn't make it right; I'm just reporting the fact. I've seen pictures of the charts that both of these men made.
People believe all kinds of error, but that doesn't wipe out the true things they believe and whatever good they may do.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Parodyonlife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Corning, New York USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | NEW CATHOLIC!!! W( ) ( )T!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 07:36 pm |
|
Of course! God can work through anyone they were wise men most likely more richely educated than anyone else of the time. But they studied the skys to seek truth and it lead them to Jesus. They didnt study the stars to map them out and find out how far away they are and what their made of. 
Last edited on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 07:36 pm by Parodyonlife
____________________
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1627 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 07:43 pm |
|
| Yep; if God used Balaam's ass and Nebuchadnezzar He can certainly use an astrologer or sinners like you and I.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Parodyonlife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Corning, New York USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | NEW CATHOLIC!!! W( ) ( )T!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 07:52 pm |
|
Indeed. it would make a great story how about we call it the nativity story....
Last edited on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 08:05 pm by Parodyonlife
____________________
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5347 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 12:06 am |
|
Parodyonlife wrote: They wouldnt have been astronomers i take the bible litiratly ^^
But you must still understand that it was written thousands of years ago by people who could only have knowledge that was available to them.
From the Catechism:
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, 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."
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."
[Bold emphasis added]
If you are going to take the bible literally, you must do so within the context of the scripture. First, you must place it in context with all of scripture, as well as sacred tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium. And you must place it in historical and cultural context, and understand by whom and to whom it was written, and the message that God and the human authors intended to convey.
As an example, Jesus washed the feet of the disciples. He said a man who had bathed had no need to wash anything else. Why? Why the feet? The answer is that the people of Jesus' time shared the streets with camels, and horses, and dogs, and whatever other animals were lurking around. There were probably chickens and cattle and, in the non-Jewish areas, even pigs. Even people were probably urinating and possibly even defecating in the streets, as they do in much of the third world even today. Can you imagine what their feet looked and smelled like? They were sweaty and smelly with the foulest stuff you can imagine crammed between their toes. That's why dignitaries were carried through the streets on litters, so they wouldn't get their feet dirty.
Knowing that intensifies the meaning of what Jesus did. He didn't take 12 men with coats and ties and tell them to take off their shined shoes and clean socks, like we do on Holy Thursday. In a similar manner, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ made many people appreciate for the first time just how intense the suffering of Jesus really was. Yes, we all knew he was scourged, but do we really know that that means? What does it mean to be "crucified"? We've never seen it happen. Seeing it in context with the cruelty of the Roman soldiers and the hatred of the Jewish authorities, knowing that our Savior willingly gave himself for us, intensifies the meaning and helps us to truly understand it for the first time.
We can't understand scripture without understanding the full context of God's relationship with man from the creation to today. That's the error of fundamentalism.
From the Catechism:
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.
- The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.
So it is not sufficient to take the words of scripture and assign a literal meaning to it.
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on the inerrancy of scripture. From that pamphlet:
Avoiding Fundamentalism: The Problem of Literalistic Interpretation
The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant in all that the sacred writers intended t o affirm. The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1993 document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church makes the important distinction between the literal sense of Scripture and a literalistic interpretation. The literal sense is “that which has been expressed directly by the inspired authors.” To arrive at the literal sense, one must interpret the text according to the literary conventions of the time, considering the author’s intention, literary genre, and historical context. A literalistic reading disregards these considerations.
And further:
When it comes to matters of natural science, the Church teaches that the sacred authors did not necessarily intend to teach physics, astronomy, or chemistry. For example, when the Scriptures describe the sun as moving around the earth (cf. Ps. 19: 4-6; Eccles. 1:5), the sacred writer was not intending to give astronomy lessons. A literalistic approach would have to deny the modern scientific data showing that the earth revolves around the sun.
However, the writers were intending to report what appeared to their senses, and did so accurately. As Pope Leo XIII explained, “they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time . . . . Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers . . . went by what sensibly appeared” (Providentissimus Deus, II, D, 2, b).
Read the Faith Fact for a complete discussion of just what the Church considers the inerrancy of scripture.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Parodyonlife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Corning, New York USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | NEW CATHOLIC!!! W( ) ( )T!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 12:46 am |
|
Yeah but i think God knew what he was doing when he wrote that in the bible. The bible was written for all of humanity and in all times. Not for 2000 years ago alone. They knew the difference between astronomers and astrologers back then. So my crazy fundementalism is just what i believe the bible is trying to portray, and take care who you call fundementalist because a fundementalist is someone who takes the bible for what it says Jesus Rose from the dead. And DID rise 3 days later. The bible is pretty freakin straight forward we don't need a interpretor  . unless interpreting what the bible says is wrong also. Which I'm sure you can find an article for that to  . There where plenty of astronemors BEFORE that passage even occured and also Astrologers so the fact that the bible would put one thing and mean another when both were clear in that time period is mind boggaling. "The Problem of Literalistic Interpretation" So we should not take the bible litarly? We should find our feeeelings on the issues and have talks on what it means and how it touches us... Yuck.  Thats my 2 cents.
Johnny
____________________
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5347 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 01:37 am |
|
Parodyonlife wrote: The bible is pretty freakin straight forward we don't need a interpretor .
If you mean that each passage of the bible represents literal fact and truth, then indeed that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that there is a three-legged stool which is the foundation of Truth, and the three legs are Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. Most of us are not qualified to interpret much of Scripture without the guidance of the Church.
I won't go any farther in this thread as it is not appropriate. If you would like to discuss it further, please start a new topic and we can discuss just what the errors of Protestant-style fundamentalism are. Meanwhile, I did a Catholic Google search on the word "fundamentalism". You can see the results of that search here. You can also read Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism for a full discussion of the errors of Protestant-style fundamentalism, and no doubt Dave has a number of papers on the topic on his blog.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Parodyonlife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Corning, New York USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | NEW CATHOLIC!!! W( ) ( )T!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 02:07 pm |
|
Thats not what I am saying. Where have I said take every passage of the bible literally? There are passages in the bible we should take literally like Jesus died on the cross etc, without guidance at all that is what all (well most) Christians agree on. Im not a fundementalist I am using common sense. There were plenty of astronomers in babylon and greece at that time in fact some of the best. And plenty of astrologers I doubt the bible would be saying something it did not mean in this passage it's clear as day. Here are some things I found that may help you out with that nasty case of
Legalism.
"legalism is to add human tradition to the Word of God."
If you mean that each passage of the bible represents literal fact and truth, then indeed that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church
"Jesus directed some of his harshest words at the Pharisees and their accompanying "scribes" and "lawyers," the guardians of the ritual law of Judaism. Matthew 23 is just one of the several sermons Jesus preached against them. The gravamen of Jesus' charge against the Pharisees was that they did, in fact, scrupulously follow the ritual laws of Judaism, but their scrupulousness did not make them more charitable or lead to inner repentance."
Don't you think when God wrote the bible he was serious?
On The MAGI
The Magi (singular Magus, from Latin, via Greek μάγος ; Old English: Mage; from Old Persian maguš and Proto-Kurdish mâgî) were a tribe from ancient Media[1], who — prior to the conquest of the Medes by the Achaemenid Empire in 550 BC — were responsible for religious and funerary practices.
Later they accepted the Zoroastrian religion and developed it into Zurvanism, which would become the predominant form of Zoroastrianism during the Sassanid era (AD 226–650). No traces of Zurvanism exist beyond the 10th century. In English, the term may refer to a shaman, sorcerer or wizard; it is the origin of the words magic and magician.
They were Persian magicians. What more proof do you need?
Scripture It says they were magi. We proved magi were magicians. Sacred Tradition They have always been called magicians, in the bible and in other books that retell the nativity story. Church's Magisterium, they read that bible passage on Christmas eve in my Catholic Church which last time I checked is still under the Pope . So its got three legs and biblographic evidence supporting the fact that they were Magicians.
If you mean that each passage of the bible represents literal fact and truth, then indeed that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that there is a three-legged stool which is the foundation of Truth, and the three legs are Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. Most of us are not qualified to interpret much of Scripture without the guidance of the Church
____________________
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5347 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 03:25 pm |
|
Parodyonlife wrote: Thats not what I am saying. Where have I said take every passage of the bible literally? There are passages in the bible we should take literally like Jesus died on the cross etc, without guidance at all that is what all (well most) Christians agree on. Im not a fundementalist I am using common sense.
Good, then we are in complete agreement with the Church on the methods of interpretation. That's why I qualified my answer by saying "If you mean …".
The authors could still only write what they knew. Celestial mechanics is a function more of mathematics than astronomy, although a certain amount of astronomical observation is involved. Like physics and chemistry, math is very much involved.
We don't know what the Star of Bethlehem was. Was it a comet, or perhaps a super nova? They might have had a rudimentary understanding of comets, but they certainly would not have understood a super nova. And so what the reported was accurate as far as their senses and knowledge could conceive. God did not ask them for more than their capabilities, but the Holy Spirit inspired them to write the truth as they perceived it. If God were inspiring scripture today, the story would be the same but the details would be different and more precise because our understanding is more complete.
And so we can't look at scripture written two thousands years ago and hold it to the standards we would of a modern writing. An astronomy text today would be gibberish to all but the most brilliant in Jesus' time. And differences in language would most likely obscure the rest. Translators try to make adjustments to accommodate hose differences, but they are still differences.
And even if the magi were astronomers who fully understood everything that was happening, they didn't write the gospel, and the gospel writers weren't there. They were writing stories 50-70 years later that had been passed by word of mouth. Their stories are correct as far as they go, but did Matthew understand the celestial mechanics of Mesopotamian astronomers? How about Mark? I highly doubt it, and our Church affirms that while their stories are accurate, God made use of their human knowledge to convey the story of scripture.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 768 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 03:31 pm |
|
There is a book I read parts of some years ago called "The Gospel in the Stars." Would it surprise you that the constellations tell the story of salvation? Here is a quote from the book, written by Joseph A. Seiss in 1882:For ages this whole field has been almost entirely left to a superstitious and idolatrous astrology, which has befouled a noble and divine science and done immeasurable damage to the souls of men. But we here find it claimed to be a sacred domain laid out of God in the original intent of creation itself. And when I look at the deep and almost universal hold which a spurious and wicked treatment of this field has so long had upon mankind, I have been the more led to suspect the existence of some original, true, and sacred thing back of it, out of which all this false science and base superstiition has grown, and of which it is the perversion. (p. 11)
It's not something I hear spoken of every day, but it's a fascinating idea, that God placed the stars in such a way that even they told the story of His Son and the Virgin. Can you picture how clear the sky must have been thousands of years ago? And with no TV to distract, a person laying under the stars surely would have comprehended a picture, many pictures, just as we do now when looking at clouds.
I'm not sure where this might fit in the discussion going on here, but I'm throwing this in, that at one time, astrology may very well have been a noble science. As Scripture says, "The Heavens declare the glory of God."
Jill
Attachment: gospel stars.jpg (Downloaded 52 times) Last edited on Sat Apr 5th, 2008 03:36 pm by JillD
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
Parodyonlife
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Corning, New York USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | NEW CATHOLIC!!! W( ) ( )T!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 03:44 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote:
Trust me, I know the difference. 2000 years ago there were no astronomers as the science hadn't been invented (although some cultures had a considerable understanding of celestial mechanics). Astrologers charted the movement of astronomical objects believing they influenced events on earth. Today we know better, and astrology is no more than a parlor trick. But in Matthew's time, the magi were considered the equivalent of scientists, not magicians. That's why they are often called "Wise Men" and not magicians.
I thought this argument was weither or not they were magicians. An astronomer would not get out of bed and follow a star. A magician would be believing it had *unknown* properties. That is why the king asked them to go follow the star. And like I sais before Magi. So what you are saying now is.
And so we can't look at scripture written two thousands years ago and hold it to the standards we would of a modern writing. An astronomy text today would be gibberish to all but the most brilliant in Jesus' time. And differences in language would most likely obscure the rest. Translators try to make adjustments to accommodate those differences, but they are still differences.
Rick, that is true but in this case of the bible it is VERY clear. They were magi they were not astronomers they were PERSIAN MAGI there is no way you can possible mis construe that for astronomer. They were magicians practicing funerals and healings and all sorts of craft. That is why they brought frankensense and murr which were used in the process of embalming, and Gold which I'm sure they had a lot of from extorting kings. The story fits like a glove with the fact that they practiced witchcraft. We are talking about this specific case in the bible. Not the bible in general which im sure is out dated. It was written 2000 years ago but it was written by educated people who were trying to spread Gods word.
And even if the magi were astronomers who fully understood everything that was happening, they didn't write the gospel, and the gospel writers weren't there. They were writing stories 50-70 years later that had been passed by word of mouth. Their stories are correct as far as they go, but did Matthew understand the celestial mechanics of Mesopotamian astronomers? How about Mark? I highly doubt it, and our Church affirms that while their stories are accurate, God made use of their human knowledge to convey the story of scripture.
He used the exact word Magi which were persians which we know brought the gifts that night because the bible says we know they were a people because of 10th century manuscripts and we know that people of that time period studied the stars ALOT more than they do today so whos to say that Mathew or Mark were totally oblivous to what they were writting about the stars. I highely doubt that. God used supernatrual knowledge to write the scripture also don't forget. There are plenty of prophecies in the bible that can't be explained by "Human Knowledge".
****EDIT*****
And don't forget the apostles were Fisherman they used the stars to navigate .
Last edited on Sat Apr 5th, 2008 04:00 pm by Parodyonlife
____________________
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5347 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 5th, 2008 04:31 pm |
|
Parodyonlife wrote: I thought this argument was weither or not they were magicians.
It's not an argument because that's not permitted here. I don't know whether they were sorcerers or not, practicioners of the occult or not. They were not "magicians" as we use the term today, certainly. They have been variously represented as kings, soothsayers, scientists, tradesmen, etc., throughout the generations. We don't know where they came from or where they were going, and we have no objective testimony outside the bible that they even existed. Yes, I believe and accept the bible. That's not my point.
What's important about the magi is not who they were or the reason they travelled to Bethlehem or what they believed. The lesson of scripture is what they believed about Jesus. They brought gold because Jesus was born to be a king. They brought frankinsense because Jesus is divine. And they brought myrhh because he would suffer and die, and his body would be anointed. We honor them because they were the first to recognize Jesus as God, King, and Savior. And through the gospels, they have revealed to all generations the person of Jesus the Christ.
If indeed they were practicioners of the occult, their recognition by the Church does not honor that aspect, as we do not honor the woman caught in adultery or the woman at the well or the Roman centurion at the foot of the cross for their sins, but rather for their recognition of Christ. And the magi were given singular honor because they were the first.
As he did with the writers of scripture, the apostles and disciples, the prophets and kings and judges, and the saints and the Holy Mother of God, God used their own talents and abilities to convey God's revelation to us.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 186 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 07:03 pm |
|
God established the stars as signs in the sky (cf. Gen 1:14), so the magi were exercising a talent they had received, surely by God Himself, to recognize a great event occuring for the whole earth!
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
| | |
