A Fundamental Response to a Fundamentalist Question

[justasking4]

Now that Christmas is almost here I am sure that most of us, who are Catholic, have entered into a discussion with a fellow Christian who is a “Fundamentalist” Protestant and inevitably our fellow Christian will ask the question, “Where is that in the Bible?”

The other day I was in a discussion with a friend about Mary and the “Immaculate Conception” (hardly surprising given the season we are now in - liturgical and shopping) and of coarse she asked me where was the Immaculate Conception stated in the Bible.
My response was if she truly knew her scripture she would know it was in the Chapter that immediately proceeds the list of canonical books of the New Testament.

It was a simple answer, some would say simplistic, but it introduced my point that Revelation does come from Scripture but not Scripture alone. I am sure most of us have all used this response at one time or another in a similar conversation but why isn’t this the standard reply for we Catholics? It, atleast in my experience, opens up a whole new avenue for diologue (actually it also tends to end the conversation rather quickly).

You claim that “Revelation does come from Scripture but not Scripture alone.” If this is true, then what other “revelations” are you referring to that is considered equal to the Scriptures?

 

[guanophore]

The custom of decorating a tree at Christmas time began with Martin Luther, who is said to have been inspired by a star lit sky. so what. It’s a harmless custom, and more a cultural symbol than a religious one. I always thought the lights on a tree symbolized the angels announcing the good news to the shepherds in the fields.
Those who claim a Christmas tree is an idol are the same ones who think that anything made of physical matter cannot be used for religious purposes. It’s a mix of Gnosticism (all matter is evil) and Iconoclasm: sacreligious acts on religious objects beginning with the Muslems in the 7th century. Iconoclasm was mortally wounded by the Church and reared it’s ugly head again 1000 years later with the so called reformation, where pricelss works of art were destroyed, churches sacked, crucifixes and Nativity scenes were smashed, tombs of saints were burned ‘in the name of God’.

That may be, but tabcom is right in what he has chosen. If it is an idol for him, and it leads him astray, it is good that he has forsaken it. I think this is what Jesus meant when he was talking about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands. Better to do without than not to enter the kingdom. If he has made a mistake, it is in assuming that his personal moral choice applies to everyone.

 

[tabcom]

To participate in a catholic forum – to have engaging dialog with catholics is of great benefit to me.

Originally Post #1 by TOME
Now that Christmas is almost here , , , “Where is that in the Bible?”

I’ve been active involved with the thread way back at post #3. What has occurred is a natural evolution of public discourse. I’ve stated my belief that Christmas is not in the Bible. There are a few posters that are Roman Catholic that agree with me. The discussion then evolved to an even more fundamental question – to the existence of Jesus the man. There has been some thoughtful posts stating a historical claim that He did exist. Because we are dealing with a matter of historical record and not one of faith, I’ve replied to the negative regarding the accuracy of those historical claims. I’d very much like to have other thoughtful Roman Catholics join the discussion by providing historical evidence regarding the question.

Without a fundamental basis to conclude that Jesus ever existed, the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church is in doubt.

this thread is so off from what it started out as that I’m amazed the"moderator" hasn’t stepped in.

There are plenty of discussions at forums.catholic-questions.org that make me .
I don’t bother reading them.

 

[Petergee]

Sounds like this Mr Wells should stick to studying German. Or maybe crack open the Acts of the Apostles, which it sems he’s never done. It always amuses me when someone claims that he knows better than the historical contemporaries what really happened 2000 years ago, and has finally discovered the “truth” that they didn’t know. What a load of twaddle. St Paul didn’t need to refer frequently to Christ’s lesser miracles, because these were preliminaries to the great miracle of the Resurrection/Eucharist, which he explains at great length. And he didn’t need to constantly teach in the format “Christ said …” because as an Apostle, Christ gave HIM authority to teach.

And tabcom if you want to have a civil discussion and avoid making Catholics , please don’t use pejorative terms like “Roman Catholic”.

 

[mercygate]

Sounds like this Mr Wells should stick to studying German. Or maybe crack open the Acts of the Apostles, which it sems he’s never done. It always amuses me when someone claims that he knows better than the historical contemporaries what really happened 2000 years ago, and has finally discovered the “truth” that they didn’t know. What a load of twaddle. St Paul didn’t need to refer frequently to Christ’s lesser miracles, because these were preliminaries to the great miracle of the Resurrection/Eucharist, which he explains at great length. And he didn’t need to constantly teach in the format “Christ said …” because as an Apostle, Christ gave HIM authority to teach.

And tabcom if you want to have a civil discussion and avoid making Catholics , please don’t use pejorative terms like “Roman Catholic”.

Since the manuscript sources of the New Testament are more plentiful and more reliable and more nearly contemporary with their purported authorship than any other manuscript families in the ancient world, I wonder that anyone would require “secular” documentation for the existence of Jesus, given the well documented history of the early Christians under Roman persecution.

 

[tabcom]

Sounds like this Mr Wells should . . . crack open the Acts of the Apostles.

Mr. Wells has much to say regarding Acts and the historical record and Jesus. I’m afraid his findings will not meet to your satisfaction:

"Acts does not carry the history of the church up to the author’s own time, but depicts only Christianity’s path from Jerusalem to Rome – the ‘heroic’ period when the church was (supposedly) free from heresy, and when its officials still behaved impeccably, leading an ideal and completely harmonious community, widely respected and secure with its miraculous deeds. This was not conscious idealization, but was how the author and Christians generally of the early second century will have viewed the original period.

One of Acts’ overall concerns is to make clear that Christianity posed no threat to the authority of the Romans. Hence, although the author could not – against the obvious truth – conclude the book by having Paul set free from Roman captivity, he does his best to insinuate that this is what the Romans wanted. At 28:17-19 he goes so far as to make Paul say as much (‘the Romans, who, when they had examined me, desired to set me at liberty’) and to make him claim that he had to appeal to stand trial in Caesar’s court in Rome only in order to protect himself from hostile Jews in Judea. In his invaluable commentary on Acts – its seventh and final edition appeared in 1977, two years after the author’s death – Ernst Haenchen observes that even the account in earlier chapters of the book of Acts itself fails to bear this out; for only those Romans who do not have authority to decide Paul’s case are there represented as favouring his acquittal. Thus Claudius Lysias found him innocent (23:29), but, as a subordinate official, was obliged to send him to the governor Felix for trial. Later, Felix’ successor Festus declared him innocent (25:18. 25 and 26:31 1) only after the appeal to Rome had taken the case out of his hands. It is, then, clear what the author of Acts wants us to believe, and equally clear that he was not able to make the evidence add up to it. Moreover, Paul’s arrest and the proceedings against him are, for Acts, no minor matter, but occupy the whole of the final quarter of the book (chapters 21 to 28)."

(Paul) didn’t need to constantly teach in the format “Christ said …” because as an Apostle, Christ gave HIM authority to teach.

This claim doesn’t help in proofing that Jesus did infact exist either.

“If the gospels do not help us, we fare no better with the equally late Acts of the Apostles. In his first speech there Peter claims that he and others had kept Jesus’ company from his baptism onwards. But in no extant document before the gospels is Peter or anyone else called a ‘disciple’ in the sense of a companion during a ministry. The term used in the earliest documents is ‘apostle’ and it there means missionary’. After Acts 16:4 there is no further mention of these alleged companions of Jesus. They disappear from the narrative, with no suggestion that they appointed successors. The missionary work in the Diaspora is represented as effected principally by Paul.”

 

[juliamajor]

To participate in a catholic forum – to have engaging dialog with catholics is of great benefit to me. I’ve been active involved with the thread way back at post #3. What has occurred is a natural evolution of public discourse. I’ve stated my belief that Christmas is not in the Bible. There are a few posters that are Roman Catholic that agree with me. The discussion then evolved to an even more fundamental question – to the existence of Jesus the man. There has been some thoughtful posts stating a historical claim that He did exist. Because we are dealing with a matter of historical record and not one of faith, I’ve replied to the negative regarding the accuracy of those historical claims. I’d very much like to have other thoughtful Roman Catholics join the discussion by providing historical evidence regarding the question.

Without a fundamental basis to conclude that Jesus ever existed, the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church is in doubt. There are plenty of discussions at forums.catholic-questions.org that make me .
I don’t bother reading them.

Mr. G.A. Wells- who you quote ad nauseum has made a career out of this drivel.christ as a fiction was a postulated at the turn of the century and has since fell into disfavor. I could quote from quite a few sources but that would take time and energy(and yes,will) that I don’t have…I could quote Tacitus and the Christian persecutions by Nero64AD? “Christus, from whom the name(christian) had it’s origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil,but even in Rome.“Tacitus gives us a name a place a time andan an event. Gaius Suetonius–again mentions Christians and the Neronian persecution. Flavius josepus (37-97ad) wrote about a “wise man who was called Jesus… Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die” Reference to darkness over the land of Judea at the time of the passover written by Thallus reported by Juliius africanus. Pliny the younger in his famous letter to Trajan about what to do with Christians” “christians were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when the sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, AS TO A GOD”.that’s just a few-Wells has been chided by fellow historians on his poor Methodology…Michael Grant well known Graeco- roman Historian has stated that"there is more evidence of jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagans- yet no one argues about here non-existence"J.P Holding.First Biographies of alexander the great weren’t written until over 400yrs after his death.Yet no one claims that lack of contemporary writings invalidated alexander’s existence. Here are some extra-biblical records Thallus(c50-75 ad) Phlegon 1st century. Josephus"antiquities’ (c93) Tacitus “annals” (c115-120) Suetonius"lives of the Caesars”(c125) Galen(various writings) c150. Celsus "true discourses “c.170 Mara Bar Serapion pre 200’s? Talmudic references : Lucian 2nd century,Numenius, 2nd century , Galerius 2nd CenturyRemember Wells is NOT a NT scholarat all.Well also has accepted historicity of Jesus based on Q document;Wells"Jesus myth” 1999. Here’s a list of scholars who dispute wells drivel-Dominic Crossan,Michael Grant,John Meier, James charleswoth,EP.Sanders ; Robert e. Van Voorst"Jesus outside the NT., Werner Kummel “the NT: the history of the investigation of its problems’, Gunter Bornkamm"jesus of Nazareth.Rudolf Bultman’Jesus and the Word”: Famed German Historian Adolf Harnack; Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner of hebrew University.

 

[tabcom]

postulated at the turn of the century and has since fell into disfavor.

It is odd to me that I’ve heard similar apologies elsewhere. You’ll need to update your ‘cut-n-paste’ playbook. Wells wrote his book at the end of the 20th century, not the 19th.

This discussion has moved to . . .

the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church is in doubt

It is there your long list is being systematically refuted.