Do you not have an image of the baby Jesus in your church in December? Did he not grow up and live to be about 33 years old? :yup:
It is curious to me that you would get this out of my posts, since I am the one who keeps repeatedly saying that Catholics have no need to “justify” our faith.
It is true that we understand the Scriptures differently because we read them with different suppositions. The fact that we understand the authors differently does not equate to it “meaning nothing”.
I think you are confused, m3. The bones were tested in a lab. The lab results are considered authoratative. The Lab said the bones were from the first century. This supports the tradition of the Church that the bodies of Peter and Paul are below the altar. It is not a matter of doctrine, so you are right, the scientific evidence does nothing to change the once for all divine deposit of faith.
It seems that you have been very misled about the Catholic faith. Having questions is not the same as failing to put one’s faith in Christ. Your questions, however, had a disparaging and mocking tone, and you assign the work of God to the devil. This reveals a mind and heart hostile toward God.
The Catholic Church preserves the Gospel from the Apostles, who carried a crucifix.
considering God to be the ultimate cause of thought it would have to be, even for those who because of free will reject him, but the use of language leave you with the problem of interpretation, particularly if you understand thet the original scripture lacked vowels and the text could only be understood in context and depending of the pauses between letters etc. I think the more important element is the holy spirit as the “transcription factor” inside the reader that make the text coherent. A bit like DNA, written by God but still able to give rise to cancer
is there anything in the lutheran doctrine telling us not to think about the scriptures and to make sense of them.
Why do I reject Christian faith by trying to find other ways to understand Christs message? I actually want Jesus admired for th values he tought. To me God is the Logos and the best thing that can happen to us is to understand God’s logic. Jesus was not Darren Brown who had to trick people into believing things. Watch him giving you religious experiences and then tell people that this is what Jesus did.
sounds a bit maniac to me as if you already made your judgement because I question your perception of miracles and I must be a non-believer in Christ. Imagine me to be a stronger believer in Christ than you as it does not need a miracle for me to believe in him. To me God is not a model to make me dream that I am pampered by him and shielded from reality but the loving e/m/p-ternal existence that alows me to face reality not to make me dream that he might make reality go away.
If you see me in error, please correct me! That goes for all Lutherans - for we all need all the help we can get. Don’t get me wrong, we can be feisty, but we should never be anything other than grateful for correction.
I think that’s a fair critique about the era, but I would say we Lutherans are open to a bit of mystery. We reject the description of Transubstantiation not because it’s a bad description (in fact it’s quite good), but because it is a description - we feel that the True Body and True Blood is a mystery of the faith. It is beyond our ability to fathom fully.
Why on earth would you be upset that scientific evidence indicates that our Catholic friends could be correct about these relics?
Yes I agree. The Lutheran communion was able to retain much more of the Apostolic teaching on mystery than those who were contaminated by Calvin and Zwingli. Human reason is largely the blame for this.
He did depart from what the Apostles believed and taught about reason, for our faith is to seek reason, and vice versa, but it is true that we must recognilze the limitations of human reason. We cannot fathom the mysteries of God. Human reason will always fall short.
Unfortunately I think there may be a demonic influence at work in that case, so that it is not possible for love and joy to break through toward anything Catholic.
From my viewpoint, I wouldn’t say this is quite fair: Luther was a strong on reason I would say - while his writings were peppered with cussing, his arguments were generally based on history and logic.
The point stands–the Church tested remains by modern, scientific means. They exposed their tradition based belief, against 3rd party scientific scruitiny.
LOL!…
…
If you’re not enjoying arguing with Protestants, you need to find better Protestants.
Paraphrase - A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning. According to its deffinition a paraphrase is not misleading or wrong, but a clarifier. I get the feeling you are trying to say that because Fr. John A. Hardon S.J. is paraphrasing that this work is not accurate. When in fact a paraphrased work is beyond accurate it is clarifying. And, this is what Fr. John A. Hardon S.J. has done for the Church. He has brought more clarity to its teachings.
Thanks! I apologize if I seemed cranky. I get that way when I think someone has asked me if I read something I just quoted from.
You must realize that it is possible to attempt an accurate paraphrase and fail. This would be unintended even if misleading. Or one could deliberately restate a passage in a way to mislead. I am making no judgement of Fr. Hardon’s motives. I only claim he has constructed an inaccurate paraphrase. Why do I say this? Recall the source passage:
Can you blame me if I have misunderstood you? You had said this:
Except I did not reference the Catechism in the post you are quoting. But I did reference a second paragraph, part four (4§2) in that post. That was the reference to the section of the Vatican Decree on Ecumenism containing the infamous Hardon source text. Part 4 paragraph 2 also discusses “…“dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities.”
The phrase “local level” is not used. The capitalization of the words Church and Communities (meaning faith communities, not towns) argues rather for a wider more comprehensive intent I would think. And certainly there is nothing here to preclude other ecumenical activities by the laity. But now I am repeating myself.
Late in the game (or discussion
), but I wanted to address this particular issue with an answer I received from a very wise, kind Jewish young man. Keep in mind the dry, desert conditions in which the people lived during Biblical times. Clean, usable water was a premium and much of it was used for washing, a requirement of their law. Of course, people made due with the water they could carry home in a day, and survived, but grapes were in abundance and made the most delicious sweet beverage. Fresh grape juice was a treat, like having a Coke, and in many Jewish communities around the world is still valued as such. However, there was a lack of sufficient methods of refrigeration and the juice would quickly ferment. Due to the valued nature of the product, it was incorporated into religious celebrations, I defy anyone to attend a true Seder Meal, and I mean TRUE AND TRADITIONAL, and leave the evening sober. Those are family celebrations where no one is expected to leave for home at the end.Thanks Cranch. I agree with you that Hardin’s paraphrase is misleading. It torqued me as son as I read it!
you are quite right with the problem of grape juice fermentation thus grape juice was the pure clean stuff if it did not go fizzy. You would have thougth grape juice to be more valuable than Coke as it required skill to keep it fresh and clean, but why would you think that for jesus the wine would have been an improvement over the living water and why would he have wanted to hide the truth. It just does not make sense as in the end this miracle would present Jesus as hiding the truth that a family could not afford to have enough wine and make it look that this was something to be ashamed of thus needing a miracle to avert it. Jesus did come to reveal the truth, he made us face it and not to hide it. With him you can cope with any truth, not avoid itLate in the game (or discussion
A wedding is traditionally a ceremony that holds great social and often religious significance. It makes sense that wine would be part of the festivities. Besides, if He merely changed it into grape juice, why would the servers have asked why they were giving the guests the GOOD wine later in the evening, when one would assume that they had had enough to drink that they could no longer tell that they were being served the less expensive?
.
Human flesh is of no avail with regard to the miracles of God. For Catholics (and I believe also for Lutherans who accept the foundations of the Lutheran faith found in the confessions), the Scriptures are considered the inspired and inerrant Word of God. What comes to us through them is divine revelation. Scriptures reveal that Jesus changed the water into wine, so we are bound to accept this miracle, whether it makes “sense” or fits with our limited cognitive understanding, or not. It is not for us to determine “why we think” God would work the miracles He has before the face of humanity. It is for us to understand what he is trying to reveal about Himself to us, through those miracles.
uch: