ping
**February 14, 2014**
Well, that would be all well and good, except that the Church does *not* use those interpolations as evidence for the teachings of the Church, but for other purposes.
I know that some Protestants, for they have told me so, take Christ’s words to His mother at the wedding of Cana to be a put-down of her because He calls her “woman.” They then use this against Catholic teachings about the importance of Mary, the Mother of God, despite the fact that He clearly obeyed her afterwards! This to me is a more egregious example of what you are describing than anything you mention in this article (which is the only one of the two which I have read).
Just remember that there are more kinds of literature in religious writings than the purely literal.
Where's his evidence that ANY of these fictional musings by various people are dogma, or even inform dogma in any way. There isn't any. Talk about making truth up out of nothing; Tim Kauffman is an expert.
The link in the article to Newman’s original article is broken, and google couldn’t find it either. I could only find it in snippets from others who criticized it.
Nevertheless, looking only at the snippets included in this article, it seems that the author is confused between mediation and doctrine.
At least in the snippets provided, Newman does not say that the details and embellishments are “evidence” of anything. He says they are aids to meditation.
A quick example will illustrate the difference: if I meditate Luke Ch. 1 26-38, I read:
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.
When I meditate on this passage I picture it, like many painters have done, taking place in a house. I picture Mary alone perhaps in her bedroom when the angel appears.
But scripture does not say that the angel came to Mary in a house. It might have happened outside at the well or elsewhere.
If there were a raging debate over the issue of whether this scene took place inside or outside my picture of this scene would not constitute “evidence” that it took place inside and contrary to what the author of this article believes, Newman is not claiming that it does.
Thanks mom
I’m somewhat confused by this article. It shows the following quotation, but does not cite the source.
“we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.”
Who made this statement? When was it made? In what context was it made? What is the source of the statement?
There are several other quoted items in the article that do not show the source of the quotes. How are we to take this article seriously if the writer does not source the quotations he uses?