Did Jesus actually say that?

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, I think there may be multiple interpretations for those passages… the critical piece for me to start with, is did Jesus actually say those things?

Dan I don’t think you have explored with us why Jesus’s “ipissima verba” are so important for you?

Yes a sort of human “faith” is needed to believe Jesus said roughly those things - but that isn’t the faith that brings “salvation.”

I accept your concern, if that is what you are getting at here, that knowledge of Jesus is fully mediated through humanity (i.e. the “Church”).

Acceptance of the Bible inherently means acceptance of that Church from which it came.
If you cannot accept the Church then “accepting the Bible” is probably a train that doesn’t go very far.

 

[steve_b]

Steve the sarcastic tone when someone challenges your views suggests debate with you is not possible.
Whole libraries have been written on the, at the very least, partially unreliable nature of the verse you accept so literally and readily. Summaries of these scholarly debates are easily found on the internet. That you appear totally unaware of them in your above view makes your approach unconvincing.
To be more convincing you need to do more homework and be more open to other points of view than you display above. I am not going to do your homework for you. My gift to you is simply to show you the need.

so iow you don’t have an answer to my question.

 

[Qoeleth]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10002454#post10002454

in reply #11, Ignatius wrote

Here we are. I think that’s fair to say that I don’t accept the revealed Word of God. I would put it this way, that when looking at a quote from the Scriptures (in this case Matt 16:18), we can’t really be sure if Jesus actually said it… apart from faith, choosing to believe He said it… here’s looking forward to a fruitful discussion!

Accepting Scripture as the Word of God does not mean accepting it as a ‘word-for-word’ transcription of Christ’s actual discourses. I mean, if the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel were the exact words of Jesus, the whole thing would have taken maybe ten minutes to say- but we know that Jesus taught at some length.

The thing is, even if it is not word-for-word, it recalls faithfully the message of Jesus

Regarding the reference to the Gospel of Thomas, I see no irreconcilability in the idea of being ‘passers-by’ (in the world), and establishing a Church.

 

[Dan_471]

I do believe in the fundamental value of seeking for the truth and in seeking understanding (“I no longer call you servants, but friends; a servant does not know what his master does; instead I call you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.”) thus not acting with servile obedience but with filial obedience (and we well know that young children are notorious for always asking “why”, thus seeking understanding even when, through obedience and discipline, they’d accept a “because I am your father and I say so” ). However, like I said, the boundary between filial curiosity and rebelliousness is very subtle, and hardly we realize when we’ve stopped seeking understanding of the father’s will and started trying to oppose our will to his will until it’s very hard to turn back and acknowledge our error…which is why the sheer simplicity of trusting in God and in His Church

I don’t think trying to figure out if God has a Church or group or which one it is is rebelliousness… I do think shutting down your heart’s desire to try to understand better, or to figure out if Jesus actually said something is a kind of rebelliousness…

benefits souls so much. There is more I could mention on the latter in terms of spiritual warfare, but that is meant to strengthens an existing solid faith, not to clarify doubts. But there is more to be said, indeed.

 

[Dan_471]

I’m curious, do you by any chance believe that Al-Qur’an is the word of God?

Since you refuse to answer, we’ll take that as a yes.

I didn’t refuse to answer… I’m going through the posts one by one…

 

[Dan_471]

Out of curiousity

You’re welcome to be curious… ask me anything

–Do you accept anything you didn’t hear with your own ears?

Yes

Just where do you draw the line for when you’ll accept someone said something and when you won’t?

A lot depends on the size of the claim and how much it will affect me… if someone says that Julius ceasar said ‘what a great place’ when he invaded Gaul… well, that’s not a huge claim, and it doesn’t affect me too much… if someone tells me that Joe met up with some aliens last night, and he says they’re really cool, that’s a big claim, and I’d really like to know if it’s true because it would really impact my worldview…

Without understanding this I don’t think any meaningful discussion can take place. In fact I find it hard to believe that you can accept that anything was said by any historical figure.

Not at all… I accept that Lincoln did the Gettysburg address… course, that’s rather recent… I accept that Paul wrote/said Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians because all but the most liberal scholars accept these as genuine Paul (so I’ve heard)…

Peace,
Mark

Peace to you, too!

 

[Dan_471]

On the issue of Peter, I believe that Peter’s name is also mentioned more than any other (besides Jesus) in the NT. It obviously shows the significance of the role that Peter played.

should we count the “I” pronouns in Paul’s letters? if so, that could change the stats…

 

[AmbroseSJ]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10002454#post10002454

in reply #11, Ignatius wrote

Here we are. I think that’s fair to say that I don’t accept the revealed Word of God. I would put it this way, that when looking at a quote from the Scriptures (in this case Matt 16:18), we can’t really be sure if Jesus actually said it… apart from faith, choosing to believe He said it… here’s looking forward to a fruitful discussion!

You’re working this out backwards.

Your first Principle should rest on the existence of God.
This principle is itself a belief, but for personal reasons, you have accepted this belief as a FIRST PRINCIPLE, upon which all else rests.

If you examine your first principle carefully, you will have to determine WHY you believe there is a God, and what sort of God that is.

Are you a Deist that denies Divine Revelation?

 

[Dan_471]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
I think that’s fair to say that I don’t accept the revealed Word of God.

OK…you don’t accept that the canon of Scripture to be the revealed word of God. Got it.

Quote:
I would put it this way, that when looking at a quote from the Scriptures (in this case Matt 16:18), we can’t really be sure if Jesus actually said it… apart from faith, choosing to believe He said it…

That is correct. But it is also true that there is nothing that anyone has said that you can “really be sure if” they actually said it.

Yes, true… tho I think there are different degrees of certainty…

So what is your point?

My original question had been about how strong was the connection between Jesus and the RCC… Many people had brought up the verse from Matthew 16, so if Jesus actually said it, then the connection is much stronger than if He didn’t… If ‘Matthew’ was working from a collection of quotations that someone else made, then the connection seems weaker, imo…

Quote:
here’s looking forward to a fruitful discussion!

What, exactly, is it you wish to discuss?

Reasons other than faith to accept the quote as reliable… I agree that Tradition is one reason… then again the quote occurs only here, I think… in Mark’s account, I think some of the Peter part is left out… John had something ( I think) about forgiving sins or retaining… that’s to all the Apostles, I think… so perhaps multiple sayings or traditions that got rolled into one in the Matthew account…

Do you wish to hear why we believe the quotes attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are actual quotes of Jesus?

Sure, if you want to share… when you say ‘we’ will you be speaking for others? or will you be speaking for yourself, using a polite ‘we’ ?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, there was more than one community, wasn’t there? Even as today there were more than one group of believers, I think

Only just now saw your contrib sorry.

Yes there were lots of disparate communities in the early Church - some more isolated than others. The roving apostles (and their delegates) sought to unite them, realising similar sentiments to Christ as expressed in the 4th Gosepl (“that they may all be one”).

I am not sure of the relevence of your observation?

 

[Dan_471]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
Well, I think there may be multiple interpretations for those passages… the critical piece for me to start with, is did Jesus actually say those things?

Dan I don’t think you have explored with us why Jesus’s “ipissima verba” are so important for you?

Well, let’s see… my original question was something like, What is the connection, or how strong is the connection between Jesus’ resurection and the RCC… a lot of people responded with Matt 16… (of course, as often happens, the thread began splitting up into different forms of the original question, and off-shoots of it…) one question was ‘did Jesus actually say that’… ‘Ignatius’ suggested I start a new thread on the topic, so here we are…

Yes a sort of human “faith” is needed to believe Jesus said roughly those things - but that isn’t the faith that brings “salvation.”

OK, I’ll agree with you there, I think…

I accept your concern, if that is what you are getting at here, that knowledge of Jesus is fully mediated through humanity (i.e. the “Church”).

Hummm… that’s an interesting idea, one that I hadn’t heard before, that direct knowledge of Jesus wasn’t possible… if that’s what you’re saying… I grew up Fundamentalist, Charismatic, Protestant, tho I’m certainly not those things now (well maybe a little, you never really leave your ‘mother tongue’, imo) I remember a few years ago when it hit me "Oh my gosh, I grew up a heretic… and those ‘heretics’ that I’ve read about in early church history… they were probably feeling the same things that I was feeling… experiences of directly communicating with God, and being filled with the Spirit… I think on some level I assumed that most people in the RCC were having some level of those experiences, too…

Acceptance of the Bible inherently means acceptance of that Church from which it came.

OK, following you so far…

If you cannot accept the Church then “accepting the Bible” is probably a train that doesn’t go very far.

Yes, I think I agree with you there…

 

[Dan_471]

Accepting Scripture as the Word of God does not mean accepting it as a ‘word-for-word’ transcription of Christ’s actual discourses.

do you believe Jesus actually said most of the quotes in the Gospels?

I mean, if the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel were the exact words of Jesus, the whole thing would have taken maybe ten minutes to say- but we know that Jesus taught at some length.

how would we know that Jesus taught at some length? perhaps He was the kind of speaker that could say a lot in a few words…

The thing is, even if it is not word-for-word, it recalls faithfully the message of Jesus

this is a matter of faith, then, I’m taking it?

Regarding the reference to the Gospel of Thomas, I see no irreconcilability in the idea of being ‘passers-by’ (in the world), and establishing a Church.

they can be reconciled, yes… to me it sounds like different directions… do you believe Jesus actually said it?

 

[Dan_471]

You’re working this out backwards.

OK…

Your first Principle should rest on the existence of God.

OK, I can accept that…

This principle is itself a belief, but for personal reasons, you have accepted this belief as a FIRST PRINCIPLE, upon which all else rests.
If you examine your first principle carefully, you will have to determine WHY you believe there is a God, and what sort of God that is.

Well, I believe there is a God because there is a universe with conscious beings in it… I think this says that God is ordered and mysterious…

Are you a Deist that denies Divine Revelation?

No

 

[Dan_471]

Only just now saw your contrib sorry.

no prob at all

Yes there were lots of disparate communities in the early Church - some more isolated than others. The roving apostles (and their delegates) sought to unite them, realising similar sentiments to Christ as expressed in the 4th Gosepl (“that they may all be one”).

Did Jesus want all of the communities to be united into one community with Peter as the leader? Why would we think this? Were all the Apostles working toward this goal? it strikes me as strange that Paul never says something like, ‘and if you have any doctrinal questions, remember that Peter leads us to the right answers’…rather Paul seems into the idea of looking to his knowledge of the Scriptures and his personal revelation…imo…

I am not sure of the relevence of your observation?

(my observation being “Well, there was more than one community, wasn’t there? Even as today there were more than one group of believers, I think”)

Well, let’s see if we can unpack the situation… I believe you had written:

Dan it matters little at all whether Jesus actually said exactly this or the Gospel writer exercised a little poetic freedom. What matters is that the believing community accepted such writings into the Biblical canon and over time continued to interpret/correct and develop such words/theology into the highly refined teachings we have today (and which is still linked to this verse).

If there were more than one community, then the above logic has a difficulty, imo… multiple communities would come up with different canons and teachings…

Is the relevance visible now? or should I add some more words? let me know…

 

[sunga3001]

bygsunflower poster 2012
Dang tin,up tin t? d?ng nhanh chóng lên hon 5300 di?n dÃn, qu?ng cáo.
Vu?t qua câu h?i b?o m?t và mã an ninh captcha khi dang tin, up tin
Dang tin qu?ng cáo b?ng nhi?u tÃi kho?n m?t lúc
T?o nick hoÃn toÃn t? d?ng, t?c d? nhanh, 1000 nick 1 gi?, t? d?ng vu?t qua captcha và câu h?i ng?u nhiên
Lên l?ch up tin t? d?ng lên forum di?n dÃn rao v?t
Don gi?n, d? s? d?ng v?i ngu?i m?i b?t d?u.
T?o tÃi kho?n nick di?n dÃn t? d?ng
T? thêm, b?t các di?n dÃn dang tin.
Auto post bÃi nhanh 500 di?n dÃn ch? m?t 10 phút.
T? d?ng dò box link d? dang tin.
TÃch h?p Auto Reply + Pageview Hack.
Xu?t báo cáo dang tin.
Nh?p tÃi kho?n di?n dÃn qua file excel
T?o/d?i ch? ký t? d?ng
T?o/d?i Avatar t? d?ng
T?o/d?i thông tin cá nhân c?a account
H? tr? spin content (spintax, spyntax) trên tiêu d? và n?i dung nh?m t?o ra n?i dung khác nhau khi dang tin
Hu?ng d?n s? d?ng bygsunflower poster
Mu?n dang l?i tiêu d? cu ho?c chuyên m?c mÃ* tiêu d? cu ( vui lòng vÃo BYG–> Xóa d? li?u h? th?ng–>Xóa các topic dã post) xong dóng tab t?t m? d? c?p nh?t ( luu ý dùng d? tránh thu?t toán chim cánh c?t)
20/5/2012 tr? di có nhi?u di?n dÃn báo mail v? r?t ch?m vÃ* d? ta reg dc 600 mail, d? 30 phút - 4 ti?ng s? mail reg nh?ng di?n dÃ*n g?i v? >900 mail ( tuong duong > 1500 nick)

Fix l?i c?p nh?t 12/7 thu?t toán Penguin 1.0

Mu?n dang l?i tiêu d? cu ho?c chuyên m?c mÃ* tiêu d? cu ( vui lòng vÃo BYG–> Xóa d? li?u h? th?ng–>Xóa các topic dã post) xong dóng tab t?t m? d? c?p nh?t và thay d?i proxy . Có nhi?u chuyên m?c hon ,data trên 10.000 ->dang 1 l?n theo chuyên m?c t? 60- 300 bÃi + seo blacklink trên 1000 bÃi
12/7/2012 tr? di reg 1 l?n dc 750 mail, d? 30 phút - 4 ti?ng s? mail reg nh?ng di?n dÃn g?i v? >900 mail ( tuong duong > 1600 nick)
Luu ý : khi th?y reg nick b? l?i 100 và 301 nhi?u vÃ* reg mail du?c 100mail vui lòng xoá profile t?o l?i profile m?i nha (cái dó nó báo trùng profile nên ch? reg dc nhiu dó)

Fix l?i c?p nh?t 15/8 thu?t toán Penguin 1.4 thêm spam blog
*
1/10/2012 tr? di tang lu?ng 100 hay vì 50 lu?ng , tang timeout t? 50 lên 100 , thêm thu?t toán , tang boxlink
*

---

Luu ý : khi th?y reg nick b? l?i 100 và 301 nhi?u và reg mail du?c 100mail vui lòng xoá profile t?o l?i profile m?i nha (cái dó nó báo trùng profile nên ch? reg dc nhiu dó)**

****Fix l?i c?p nh?t 29/11/2012 *thu?t toánPenguin ***2.0

Ph?n m?m dang tin post 2013 HQForumPoster

********- H? tr? forum **********VBB, **XenForo, phpBB3, IPB3

- Ch?c nang dang tin RONGBAY t? d?ng

- Ph?n m?m d?u tiên và duy nh?t t?i Vi?t Nam hi?n nay h? tr? Forum Xenforo*

- T?o tÃi kho?n forum (Không dang ký l?i khi trên Profile dã có user/pass)*

- T?o tÃi kho?n forum b?ng tay*

- T?o tÃi kho?n Email Yahoo bán t? d?ng.*

- Ki?m tra tÃi kho?n s?ng hay ch?t*

- KÃch ho?t mail t? d?ng*

- Dang tin ->**** Up tin → ****Up tin theo l?ch

- Spam ki?m bÃi- SEOKeywords*

- Spam khách tham ( trang profile)

- T?o ch? ký;**** ****Thay d?i avatar

- H? tr? gi?i mã deathbycaptcha.com, captchatrader

- H? tr? spintax ( cách dùng c ho?c c )

- H? tr? g?i tên ( cách dùng sunga3001, forums.catholic-questions.org, 11:31:00, 18-12-2012 )

- Luu l?i câu h?i ng?u nhiên

• CHNN Server - Online
• Nh?p xu?t d? li?u d? dÃng*

---

- C?i ti?n thu?t toán T?o nick cho VBB, tang t? l? dang ký thÃnh công thêm 20%***

*- Thêm kh? nang t? d?ng tr? l?i CHNN th? 2 cho VBB *
**

- Thêm ch?c nang “*Xóa forum không ph?i là VBB” ? "T?o tÃi kho?n", giúp b?n l?c forum d? dÃng hon.

- Thêm kh? nang t? phát hi?n forum Xenforo trong danh sách VBB->VBB-D

- Fix ch?c nang nh?p vÃo forum VBB-A ->VBB-D (không nh?p vÃ*o du?c)

- C?i ti?n thu?t toán T?o nick cho VBB, tang t? l? dang ký thÃnh công thêm 20%*

*- Thêm kh? nang t? d?ng tr? l?i CHNN th? 2 cho VBB
*

- Thêm ch?c nang “*Xóa forum không ph?i là VBB” ? "T?o tÃi kho?n", giúp b?n l?c forum d? dÃng hon.

- Thêm kh? nang t? phát hi?n forum Xenforo trong danh sách VBB->VBB-D

- Fix ch?c nang nh?p vÃo forum VBB-A ->VBB-D (không nh?p vÃo du?c)
*

[phan mem dang tin (http://www.bygsunflower.net/) | [ph?n m?m dang tin (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)[** ** (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)| [phan mem seo (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)** | [ph?n m?m seo (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)[ ** (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)
bygsunflower.net
Liên h? :mr :Vu 092.295.2095

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Dan:

**Yes there were lots of disparate communities in the early Church - some more isolated than others. The roving apostles (and their delegates) sought to unite them, realising similar sentiments to Christ as expressed in the 4th Gosepl (“that they may all be one”). **
***Did Jesus want all of the communities to be united into one community with Peter as the leader? Why would we think this? ** *

I don’t think this - that interpretation of what I said is yours.
I said, as above, that Jesus wanted unity as in his priestly prayer to the Father “that they all be one as You and I are one.” How that incarnates itself in practice doesn’t worry me. Hard to have unity if there isn’t at least a group chairman isn’t it? I believe Jesus’s true-est followers also want this.

Were all the Apostles working toward this goal? it strikes me as strange that Paul never says something like, ‘and if you have any doctrinal questions, remember that Peter leads us to the right answers’…rather Paul seems into the idea of looking to his knowledge of the Scriptures and his personal revelation…imo…
Dan I cannot help but feel your dispassionate objectivity doesn’t ring true in this statement and it feels disingenuous. You know as well as I do that Paul sought basic legitimation for his mission and teaching from the apostles - and received it. Without it he would have been ostracised and would have fared no better than Simon Magus.

---

(my observation being “Well, there was more than one community, wasn’t there? Even as today there were more than one group of believers, I think”)***
The objective, dispassionate tone doesn’t work well here due to the irony you put at the end. Yes it is rather obvious that Christian groups are divided today - so what?

You are on a Roman Catholic Forum speaking with RCs. We interpret Scripture in accordance with what we hold to be consistent with Jesus’s teaching, apostolic understanding and, in cases never considered by the preceding, in accordance with what Jesus would teach were he alive today. We look to the Pope, under guidance of theologians and in accordance with the sentiment of the people to precision/speak that as needed.

If there were more than one community, then the above logic has a difficulty, imo… multiple communities would come up with different canons and teachings…

Quite right. Other groups of Christians have a different approach which they of course claim is correct. So what, that is just like every other aspect of life.

In the end a mature human realises one rarely gets all the boxes ticked intellectually for the important things in life.

A time comes when one has to personally stop sitting on the fence and take a **lived position (rather than the intellectualised one you are attempting here).
Certainty only lasts to the next corner - you get the next dollap of certainty by walking **to that corner NOT by thinking to that corner.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Dan:
***Hummm… that’s an interesting idea, one that I hadn’t heard before, that direct knowledge of Jesus wasn’t possible…
I grew up Fundamentalist, Charismatic, Protestant, tho I’m certainly not those things now (well maybe a little, you never really leave your ‘mother tongue’, imo) I remember a few years ago when it hit me "Oh my gosh, I grew up a heretic… and those ‘heretics’ that I’ve read about in early church history… they were probably feeling the same things that I was feeling… experiences of directly communicating with God, and being filled with the Spirit… ***

I think you are confusing different experiences here.
Obviously Jesus is a historical person - therefore knowledge of this historical person, his character and his teaching must be handed down via human mediation = culture (involving language, customs, writings, traditions etc etc). This is the case with anything or any famous person, exploit we have not seen and understood with our own eyes whether we be removed by time or geography or other barriers (e.g. language).

Being filled with the Holy Spirit (realising the immediacy of God’s presence) is not the same as the above. Obviously human history is not necessarily involved in directly experiencing God through our own being or through the world we live in. This “knowledge” is different.

Not being the same does not mean the abo ve two “knowledges” are unrelated. Christians obviously believe the two are very intimately related in the Person of Jesus. But there is a very real distinction between the two and to see them as completely the same (or completely distinct) is a naiive solution to this perplexing experience. Such a naiive solution is of course very tempting to most people as humans hate ambiguity. We always want things black and white.

 

[Dan_471]

Did Jesus want all of the communities to be united into one community with Peter as the leader? Why would we think this?

I don’t think this -

hold on here, I’m not sure if I’m understanding you… you don’t think that Jesus wanted all of the communities to be united into one community with Peter as the leader?
what is your thinking on what Jesus wanted, then? lots of communities? just one community, but with no particular leader? please explain, if you want…

that interpretation of what I said is yours.

yes, I have to go with what I understand you to say… please clarify, if you want…

I said, as above, that Jesus wanted unity as in his priestly prayer to the Father “that they all be one as You and I are one.” How that incarnates itself in practice doesn’t worry me.

would a loose coalition of believers all over the world work, in your opinion?

Hard to have unity if there isn’t at least a group chairman isn’t it?

OK, now it’s sounding to me like you do have some concerns about how it plays out…

I believe Jesus’ true-est followers also want this.

of course, it’s just a matter of the nature of the unity…

Were all the Apostles working toward this goal? it strikes me as strange that Paul never says something like, ‘and if you have any doctrinal questions, remember that Peter leads us to the right answers’…rather Paul seems into the idea of looking to his knowledge of the Scriptures and his personal revelation…imo…

Dan I cannot help but feel your dispassionate objectivity doesn’t ring true in this statement and it feels disingenuous.

I’m not really understanding you here… I try to adopt a tone that would be what we would be saying if we were standing talking to each other on a boardwalk on a beach, say… of course, you can take it or feel about it however you wish… I’m fine with that…

You know as well as I do that Paul sought basic legitimation for his mission and teaching from the apostles - and received it.

I agree that Paul sought legitimation from the other Apostles… I would have to slow down at the ‘teaching’ part… Paul says he got his Gospel through a revelation of Jesus… and anyone who teaches different than he does is cursed… I’m not seeing that he’s asking the Apostles for more teaching… maybe it’s there and I’m not seeing it…

Without it he would have been ostracised and would have fared no better than Simon Magus.

yes, he needed references from the others to get the ‘right hand of fellowship’ from the churches… last they heard he was trying to kill them…

(my observation being “Well, there was more than one community, wasn’t there? Even as today there were more than one group of believers, I think”)

The objective, dispassionate tone doesn’t work well here due to the irony you put at the end.

I think the answer worked well… you can have an opinion about the tone, of course…

Yes it is rather obvious that Christian groups are divided today - so what?

different groups have different canons and teachings… now, I understood your position to be that it didn’t really matter if Jesus said this or that, the important was how the Church interpreted His teachings today… so my next question would be ‘which church’? as in, 'which church is properly interpreting His teachings today? how strong are the reasons, in addition to faith, that the RC is that one Church?

You are on a Roman Catholic Forum speaking with RCs.

well, yes… the apologetics part of that forum… giving the RCs who choose to come a chance to hone their positions, and myself a chance to see if I overlooked something in my assessment of RC-ism.

We interpret Scripture in accordance with what we hold to be consistent with Jesus’s teaching,

what do you use as a source for Jesus’ teaching? would it be the Gospels, and would you consider Matthew to be an accurate quoter / presenter of Jesus’ teachings?

apostolic understanding and, in cases never considered by the preceding, in accordance with what Jesus would teach were he alive today.

based on the Gospels as accurate historical documents… or more as products of various communities?

We look to the Pope, under guidance of theologians and in accordance with the sentiment of the people to precision/speak that as needed.

Yes, that’s a fine choice, I think…

 

[Dan_471]

If there were more than one community, then the above logic has a difficulty, imo… multiple communities would come up with different canons and teachings…

Quite right. Other groups of Christians have a different approach which they of course claim is correct. So what, that is just like every other aspect of life.

are all the claims equally weighty? that’s what I’m looking to see if I’ve overlooked…

In the end a mature human realises one rarely gets all the boxes ticked intellectually for the important things in life.

quite so… sometimes more boxes can be checked than others…

A time comes when one has to personally stop sitting on the fence and take a lived position (rather than the intellectualised one you are attempting here).

of course I’m presenting an intellectualized position… it’s an internet forum, the apologetics area… yes, I do have a real life I live away from my keyboard…

Certainty only lasts to the next corner - you get the next dollap of certainty by walking to that corner NOT by thinking to that corner.

an interesting idea… in your opinion, do all groups have equal certainty from one corner to the next? for example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses… if you take the short hop to ‘their translation is accurate’ and another to ‘the Watchtower is God’s organization’, I don’t doubt you could have a high degree of certainty… the JW’s I’ve talked to seem to have it… those aren’t hops I’m willing to take, tho,… yes, for intellectual reasons… Jesus talked (possibly) about building on the rock or sand… I’ve seen a lot of people who thought they were doing just fine… until the rains came…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Dan_471:
…of course, it’s just a matter of the nature of the unity.
For you I think it is perhaps more the nature of the leadership.

** I agree that Paul sought legitimation from the other Apostles… I would have to slow down at the ‘teaching’ part… Paul says he got his Gospel through a revelation of Jesus… and anyone who teaches different than he does is cursed… I’m not seeing that he’s asking the Apostles for more teaching… maybe it’s there and I’m not seeing it…**

That seems a fairly simplistic understanding of what Paul is saying - I think he got a lot of info from the Christians he tortured. Of course it didn’t make sense in a personal way until his conversion and rehabilitation with Cornelius?

I hardly believe he was talking to the Apostles when he said “anyone who teaches different than he does is cursed…” as this would be ouit of context and contradicts received tradition (so far asCatholics are concerned). Private revelation, in our tradition, is always subserviant to that of the primary Apostlic, historic witness and their public testimony…

**different groups have different canons and teachings… now, I understood your position to be that it didn’t really matter if Jesus said this or that, the important was how the Church interpreted His teachings today… **
Your understanding is partially correct - try reflecting some more rather than re-questioning too quickly. It is deeper than interpretting. The Canon is also about selection and filtering by the community.The HS leads us to the truth - but it takes time and pain.

so my next question would be ‘which church’? as in, 'which church is properly interpreting His teachings today? how strong are the reasons, in addition to faith, that the RC is that one Church?
I am rusty on my Ecclesiology but their are degrees of participation in the Church of Christ. The “fulness” of the participation involves acceptance of core teachings. The teaching that Christ mandated Peter (and his disciples) in a special way to be responsibler for and work for the unity of Jesus’s followers is a teaching that the Catholic Church has always prized (even if it didn’t do a terribly good job). Another teaching would be that of the Eucharist being the very body and blood of Christ. Churches that do not fully accept these core teachings lack the fulness of adherence which signifies depth of ecclesiality. Obviously RC’s believe it possesses adherence to the full range of Christ’s teachings - other churches only partially so. That doesn’t mean we have done a good job of realising those teachings - nor that we can go it alone.

well, yes… the apologetics part of that forum… giving the RCs who choose to come a chance to hone their positions, and myself a chance to see if I overlooked something in my assessment of RC-ism.
Yes this is the fence-sitting I was referring to.

what do you use as a source for Jesus’ teaching? would it be the Gospels, and would you consider Matthew to be an accurate quoter / presenter of Jesus’ teachings?
No we are not Protestants - the Bible is but one expression of the ongoing and dynamic tradition of the Church of Christ.

The Gospel are not primarily written as historical documents but as propaganda in the best sense of that word - for bringing hearers to a commitment in faith to Jesus and his existing followers. Of course there is a historical element which it would not be expected to contradict but in non essential areas it is quite legitimate (at that time) to use “poetic licence” re minor “facts” (especially if the actual facts were not even known) if it better communicates that evangelising intent. We have to remember our pedantic concern for juridic/scientific accuracy in “objective” written documents is a very modern day obsession.