Posted on 04/23/2017 5:40:59 AM PDT by vladimir998
Scripture scholars had started to read the Bible as if it were simply a classic text. Benedict XVI helped to change that
Before the ninetieth birthday of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI on Easter Sunday, Tracey Rowland published in these pages an appreciation for what she called a “Ratzinger revolution” – a theological foundation on which, she predicts, future scholars and pastors will rebuild a Church damaged by secularism. Rowland speaks of a “treasury to be mined by future generations trying to piece together elements of a fragmented Christian culture.”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
Francis has started to read the Bible as if it were an early draft of Das Kapital. I fear his approach will be the lasting change.
At ninety, Benedict has lived long enough to see crises erupt, crises engaged, and now the beginning of crises resolved.
1) That is good to know. Concluding paragraph.
2) Was there anything about God or Jesus in the article? There is no meat, no edification.
3) So what is the purpose of the article?
“2) Was there anything about God or Jesus in the article?”
Is there any mention of God or Jesus in Esther or Song of Solomon?
“There is no meat, no edification.”
So Esther isn’t edifying? The Song of Solomon isn’t edifying?
“3) So what is the purpose of the article?”
To tell you about something you previously didn’t know.
"Yet it was his decision to publish, while pope, a three-volume study of the life of Christ (Jesus of Nazareth) that will have the greatest impact. Instead of proposing how biblical study ought to be done, Ratzinger-Benedict got on with it and did the job himself, confirming in the masterful trilogy that he was probably the most learned man alive."I highly recommend and think you might really like this one:Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. There are links to the other two there as well.
To tell you about something you previously didn’t know.
It is a puff piece to promote an individual. There was no meat to it.
“Which is?”
You yourself said, “That is good to know.” So are you saying you already knew it, but said “That is good to know” anyway?
You wrote: “It is a puff piece to promote an individual. There was no meat to it.”
Earlier, you wrote: “Was there anything about God or Jesus in the article?”
So, according to you - EARLIER - a written item must have something about God or Jesus in it to qualify as “meat” or “edification”. Again, I point out to you, “Is there any mention of God or Jesus in Esther or Song of Solomon?”
So far your posts have been meatless and not edifying.
I highly recommend and think you might really like this one:Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. There are links to the other two there as well.
Just because something is in writing does not make it news
So, according to you - EARLIER - a written item must have something about God or Jesus in it to qualify as “meat” or “edification”. Again, I point out to you, “Is there any mention of God or Jesus in Esther or Song of Solomon?”
I would encourage you to expect the same.
“This appears to be a religious article and also from a religious source. So yes, I expect some discussion about God or Jesus.”
The article is about a particular misunderstanding of the Bible and Pope Benedict’s opposition to that misunderstanding. Thus, we should expect the article to focus on that - and it did. And, unless you have difficulty reading, the article says: “Yet it was his decision to publish, while pope, a three-volume study of the life of Christ (Jesus of Nazareth)...” Thus, “Jesus”, “Christ”, are mentioned. Thus, you are wrong from the start.
“I would encourage you to expect the same.”
I would encourage you to learn to read.
And, again, Esther and The Song of Solomon do NOT mention Christ, do not mention Jesus, do not mention God. Thus, according to your illogic, they have no meat and can’t be edifying.
And now, according to you, “This appears to be a religious article and also from a religious source. So yes, I expect some discussion about God or Jesus” and yet neither Esther or The Song of Solomon does. That must mean - according to your illogic - that they are not “religious” or not “religious sources”.
The article is about a particular misunderstanding of the Bible and Pope Benedict’s opposition to that misunderstanding.
“So enlighten me. What is it? It is NOT in the article.”
Sure it is. Look at the 5th paragraph.
I’m sorry, I could just as well read this article in Peoples Magazine. There is that little content to it. Hope springs eternal that there should be a difference between religious magazines and secular one.
I am not criticizing the man, I am criticizing the article.
My reading skills are the headline, the first paragraph, the last paragraph and then the articles for details if warranted.
The last paragraph is usually the major point the author wants you to remember.
“At ninety, Benedict has lived long enough to see crises erupt, crises engaged, and now the beginning of crises resolved.”
Is that the point? Is it about tribute to Benedict?
The body has a lot of details. Mostly accolades to Benedict.
The author does getting close to the truth a couple of times, but never gets there.
Now, the gem of Benedicts life appears to be, we all need to get back to Scriptural Authority. But we can’t say that plainly, can we? Or is that not the gem?
So far you were wrong about the article not saying anything about God or Jesus.
You were wrong about the article not saying what it said in the fifth paragraph.
You have avoided, like the plague, the point that the books of Esther and the Song of Solomon neither mention God nor Jesus.
When you get around to doing something useful let me know. With that as a stated condition it’s highly unlikely you will be contacting me again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.