In further defense of the Immaculate Conception, of Jesus and of the Scriptures

January 2, 2018 by  
Filed under The Cornerstone

Followup response to additional Facebook postings to the Shrine’s Facebook page:

It has been said that, “An idle mind is the devil’s work shop, but a confused mind is the devil’s junkshop.”  After reading your responses I have been given a glimpse into the devil’s junkshop.  Sandy, there are so many fallacies in your postings that I have a hard time knowing where to start.  I was thinking that it would be more accurate to call them com-postings than postings.   I cannot call some of what you wrote knowledge that is not understood properly because a lot of it, to be quite frank, is idiotic. For example, the goofy distinction between “men and males” in your answer to Our Lady’s response that she did not know “man”.  And that is about as charitable as I can state it. Another goofy notion of yours is that the Jews did not condemn Jesus to death.  The High Priest Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to death were Jews. Herod was not the one who condemned Jesus; he sent him back to the High Priest.  They pressured the Romans to do their dirty work but it was the Jews, ethnic and religious practicioners of Judaism, that condemned Our Lord for claiming to be God which they could not disprove regarding Him.  Our Lord came as a sacrifice for Sin; that is very clearly spelled our when John the Baptist pointed to Him and proclaimed, Behold the Lamb of God, which was a Messianic title and one indicating sacrifice. 

Your comment that the Immaculate Conception did not exist until 100 years ago is another example of your lack of knowledge of even the history of the theological debate.  Blessed John Duns Scotus used the term which existed before him and he died in 1308 A.D.    Even if the term Immaculate Conception did not exist until 100 years ago, which is not true, the term Fetal Microchimerism did not exist until the late 1980’s but the reality it describes has existed since the dawn of creation.

And just as an aside,  it is A.D. and B.C., and not B.C.E. and C.E., which would be more accurately translated as “Before the Common Error” and not Era, and “Common Error.” This renaming of the division of human history is a part of the attempt to deny the historical reality of Jesus and His impact on history of mankind.  What you have is an example of Rudolph Bultman’s, Kantian influenced, heresy of the 19th century that tried to make the a false dichotomy of the Jesus of History versus the Christ of Faith. That the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible are two different things.  This heresy is a form of modern Gnosticism.  After seeing your data, it proves to me that you are sadly another modern day Gnostic who thinks that there is some hidden truth and/or that what the Bible and the Catholic Church, the authentic teacher of the Bible, has kept the real information from you and others.  I think that you have been reading the fiction of Dan Brown the Gnostic Clown. The Church has survived the Gnostic heretics of the First Century A.D. and it will survive the Gnostics of the 21st century A.D.  I do not get my theology or my knowledge of the Bible from TV preachers. Even less would I consider YouTube or the Protestant Schools of Theology or the Jesus Seminar you mention as credible sources either. Below are two responses to the Jesus Seminar and the heresy of the Historical Jesus versus the Biblical Jesus.

The Washington Post published an article on Easter Sunday titled “What really happened to Jesus?” It sported a wonderful picture of the risen Christ by Borgognone and focused on a group of (I use the term loosely) scholars known as the Jesus Seminar. It seems these “fellows” have been meeting since the late 80s to delve into the Scriptures, make some discoveries, and actually attempt to change public opinion with their findings. It seems they are part of a larger movement called “The Third Search for the Historical Jesus” begun fifteen years ago.

Among other things, they have “found”: there is no evidence that Christ rose from the dead, his friends probably buried his body in a shallow grave, Christ was not born of a virgin or even in Bethlehem.

[Marcus] Borg, the head of the Jesus Seminar, is quoted in the article as saying, “I think the resurrection of Jesus really happened, but I’m skeptical it involved anything that happened to his corpse. His followers continued to experience him after his death but in a radical new way. They had experiences of him as a living spiritual reality, as a figure of the present and past but also as having qualities of God.”

Now, granted I have not read their book, The Five Gospels, but what translation do these guys read? Reader’s Digest? I found it almost comical that these self-styled “modern” scholars should spend a tremendous amount of energy and time in their attempts to come up with the gnostic heresy that is as old as Christianity itself. The Fathers (who knew the apostles and possibly Jesus) have already denied this stuff. The article on the Gnostics in your last edition was well timed. You would think that these “scholars” would at least have the decency to come up with something original. I got bored (in a scholarly sense) halfway though the Post article. Anyway, please keep these guys in your prayers.

I forgot to mention that Director Paul Verhoeven, of such family classics as Showgirls , Robocop, and Basic Instinct , is putting together a movie about Christ. Verhoeven’s Jesus is a revolutionary who was killed “without understanding why,” unsure whether God was on his side or not, and who probably won’t rise from the dead. Verhoeven thinks Jesus’ body was probably eaten by wild dogs. Verhoeven, a member of the Jesus Seminar as well, has no advanced degrees in biblical or classical studies.

David Glasow
McLean, Virginia

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/scott-hahn-on-the-politicized-bible

In response to your comments that somehow the lack of original manuscripts of the Sacred Scripture somehow disprove them as being accurate historical documents fails to acknowledge that the copies, of which there are many and close to the lives of the authors, who were the very men that the Gospels are named after – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – are very consistent in their content and not differing in the least.  Just one work by Rene Laurentin on the historical value of the infancy narratives of the Gospels shows the falsehood of your supposed knowledge: https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Christmas-Beyond-Studies-Scripture/dp/0932506348/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512962153&sr=1-7&keywords=rene+laurentin

To be able to wade through your theological swamp and junkshop and sort through it would take more time than I have, so all I can do is pray for you that you will be given the light to see truth from your myth.

Yours in the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Father Elias, Rector

Comments are closed.

Translate »