Did Jesus actually say that?

[Dan_471]

(Note… I’m going through the posts one by one… yesterday I read and wrote back about Blue’s post 55… today I’m looking at post 56… but… I haven’t yet read what Blue wrote back, because I’m only up to 56…)

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.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you, here… earlier you wrote

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.

so, especially the “…knowledge of Jesus is fully mediated through humanity (i.e. the “Church”)” I took that to mean that real, significant knowledge of Jesus isn’t possible outside of the Church… Ok, that could be true… now, my next question would be, is it possible with the Church… that is, is everything that the Church teaches about Jesus the truth? Why would we think this? I can see that if one decides that the Church is guided by God, then yes, the above follows… now suppose that one accepts that Jesus was a real person, and on the basis of historical documents, He lived, died and came back to life again… and that He taught basically about things like loving one’s enemies… so how strong, then, is the connection between that and the RCC? if Matt 16 contains a real quote of Jesus, then it points strongly in the direction of The Church… if not, tho, then a strong piece of connection tissue is removed, imo…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

(Note… I’m going through the posts one by one… yesterday I read and wrote back about Blue’s post 55… today I’m looking at post 56… but… I haven’t yet read what Blue wrote back, because I’m only up to 56…)

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you, here… earlier you wrote

so, especially the “…knowledge of Jesus is fully mediated through humanity (i.e. the “Church”)” I took that to mean that real, significant knowledge of Jesus isn’t possible outside of the Church… Ok, that could be true… now, my next question would be, is it possible with the Church… that is, is everything that the Church teaches about Jesus the truth? Why would we think this? I can see that if one decides that the Church is guided by God, then yes, the above follows… now suppose that one accepts that Jesus was a real person, and on the basis of historical documents, He lived, died and came back to life again… and that He taught basically about things like loving one’s enemies… so how strong, then, is the connection between that and the RCC? if Matt 16 contains a real quote of Jesus, then it points strongly in the direction of The Church… if not, tho, then a strong piece of connection tissue is removed, imo…

Dan if you cannot yet see that the above are but different consequences of he same reality then you probably haven’t quite got what I am saying. Its very simple but, like seeing holographic pictures in confused images - you either get it all or not at all.

The simple fact is we never saw or heard Jesus for ourselves. We rely on a “medium” for the transmission of Jesus’s teaching. That medium is culture (the product of humans other than Jesus who “get in the way”). In the end the author of the teaching you and I get is “the Church”. But there is no longer one Church but many churches. Each “authors” JC’s life/teaching significantly differently though - that is why you find it hard to understand the RC view.

Which is true? Obviously each Church’s views has to be in some fashion consistent with the past. But as many pieces of the jigsaw are missing one can draw consistent but different conclusions from the limited data available. Only you can decide - hopefully by opening up to the influernce of the Holy Spirit that leads us all to the truth.

Catholics would say that, over time, a curious, sincere, unbiased person free of the influence of historic religious attatchment would be led (by that blind experience of the immediacy of “God” you spoke of above) ) to faith in the Chist/Church taught by the Catholic Church. But then we would say that wouldn’t we . And no person like that prob exists anyhow.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

(Note… I’m going through the posts one by one… yesterday I read and wrote back about Blue’s post 55… today I’m looking at post 56… but… I haven’t yet read what Blue wrote back, because I’m only up to 56…)

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you, here… earlier you wrote

so, especially the “…knowledge of Jesus is fully mediated through humanity (i.e. the “Church”)” I took that to mean that real, significant knowledge of Jesus isn’t possible outside of the Church… Ok, that could be true… now, my next question would be, is it possible with the Church… that is, is everything that the Church teaches about Jesus the truth? Why would we think this? I can see that if one decides that the Church is guided by God, then yes, the above follows… now suppose that one accepts that Jesus was a real person, and on the basis of historical documents, He lived, died and came back to life again… and that He taught basically about things like loving one’s enemies… so how strong, then, is the connection between that and the RCC? if Matt 16 contains a real quote of Jesus, then it points strongly in the direction of The Church… if not, tho, then a strong piece of connection tissue is removed, imo…

That sifting for the truth amongst the static and the noise of received culture of course is something we all have to every day of our lives regardless of what church we adhere to. Not everything is dogma, not everything that gets voiced in a pulpit is of God and not everything we read in the bible or the Church Fathers is readily understood.

What is truth? Its an interplay of many processes and, strangely, both public and personal in the end. It always involves a personal choice and so a risk. Few things are absolutely clear. Many things are approximately right.

Is there a clear real word for word quote of anything Jesus said? How would we know for sure if there was? In the end its a tradition that tells us Jesus’s mind/teachings. These traditions by and large agree on the basics.

 

[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.

well, yes, of course… the nature of the leadership would be related to the nature of the unity, I think…

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 -

yes, I guess you could see it as simplistic… I would see it as ‘straightforward’… Paul presents how he got his teaching in a straightforward fashion… I was attempting to rephrase it…

I think he got a lot of info from the Christians he tortured.

possibly… I hadn’t thought of that before… I thought you were saying that he sought teaching and legitmization from the Apostles… torturing them would be an odd way to go about it… I heard that he killed Christians… do we have evidence that he tortured them?.. especially to get info?

Of course it didn’t make sense in a personal way until his conversion and rehabilitation with Cornelius?

Paul is rehabed with Cornelius? I hadn’t heard that… where is the story found?

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 out of context

looks very much in context to me… in Galatians 1&2 he’s talking about how his teaching is the right one, and the other Apostles either agreed with him, or added nothing, or ended up agreeing with him later on… that’s a free reading, put into modern terms…

.

and contradicts received tradition (so far as Catholics are concerned).

Right, raising the very real question of whether Paul was ‘Catholic’

Private revelation, in our tradition, is always subservient to that of the primary Apostlic, historic witness and their public testimony…

Exactly…

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

it’s an internet forum… how can you tell how much time I’ve spent reflecting?.. anyway, I have reflected… perhaps you mean I should reflect until I start to see things your way?..

rather than re-questioning too quickly.

It is deeper than interpreting.

OK, but interpreting would be part of it, wouldn’t it?

The Canon is also about selection and filtering by the community.The HS leads us to the truth - but it takes time and pain.

does the Holy Spirit lead all Christians to the truth, or just RC’s? is the leading stronger for RC’s?

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

OK, so I’m hearing faith, then… the connection is based on faith in those teachings…

• nor that we can go it alone.

I wasn’t expecting that… the RCC needs the other groups? what role do the other groups play in helping the RCC to live out it’s mission?

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.

well, if engaging in apologetics sounds to you like fence sitting, then guilty as charged… it doesn’t look like fence sitting to me…

 

[Dan_471]

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.

So, no, then, Matthew is not accurate, or, it isn’t relevant if he is or not… it starts with believing the that RCC is the right one… everything after that falls into place… it’s not a bad position, tho I think it’s important that it be stated up-front that it starts with faith in the RCC… unless I missed something somewhere along the line…

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.

yes, and as a modern-day person, I’m obsessed with it… I’ll go with that… another thing I think is interesting is how many RC’s seem to be on that path too… there seems to be a kind of ‘back-to-the-Bible’ movement among many RC’s… it seems to be, tho I’m not sure about this, associated with EWTN… or maybe it’s that being able to say ‘the Bible says’ seems to carry more weight than ‘the Council at Ephesus decided’… or take the "the Bible says’ versus ‘Vatican II said’, even tho according RC doctrine, the ecumenical Council would have more substance and application to our lives, I think…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…

**yes, I guess you could see it as simplistic… I would see it as ‘straightforward’… Paul presents how he got his teaching in a straightforward fashion… **
Catholics don’t necessarily believe the simplistic/literal explanation is the real one - even if its usualkly the starting one.

possibly… I hadn’t thought of that before… I thought you were saying that he sought teaching and legitmization from the Apostles… torturing them would be an odd way to go about it… I heard that he killed Christians… do we have evidence that he tortured them?.. especially to get info?
I am saying it would be naiive to conclude that Paul derived his knowledge of Jesus’s teachings and historical details from a personal revelation…especially just because he said so himself.

Paul is rehabed with Cornelius? I hadn’t heard that… where is the story found?
Dan there is a question mark after “Cornelius” … I am confident you would know exactly who I really meant. That you comment here, and in this way, says a lot about your personality. Its worth reflecting on if you can accept I make this observation without malice.

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 didn’t say that RC is identical with the Church of Christ…I said all churches participate in the Church of Christ in varying degrees. That variance in participation is probably on a number of different dimensions but the main one is probably fulness of teaching’s held.

I wasn’t expecting that… the RCC needs the other groups? what role do the other groups play in helping the RCC to live out it’s mission?
If Christ desired all his followers to be One, and one of those groups was charged with responsibility for that charism/role (the See of Peter) then… as long as the churches are divided then Peter must in some way be judged to have failed (at best) or be at fault (at worst). It takes two to tango.

well, if engaging in apologetics sounds to you like fence sitting, then guilty as charged… it doesn’t look like fence sitting to me.
When faith is no more than an intellectual exercise of alleged reason and objectivity and we pretend the heart, and leaps beyond the rational/seen, don’t come into it - that is what I call fence sitting. You are simply checking, as you put it, that your understanding of RC’s is correct. Its all in vain. You will not really understand RCs (or what I am saying) because you seem to intentionally try and leave your heart out of the picture by excessively intellectualising/objectifying the discussion as some sort of scientific method.

"… there seems to be a kind of ‘back-to-the-Bible’ movement among many RC’s… it seems to be, tho I’m not sure about this, associated with EWTN… or maybe it’s that being able to say ‘the Bible says’ seems to carry more weight than ‘the Council at Ephesus decided’… or take the "the Bible says’ versus ‘Vatican II said’, even tho according RC doctrine, the ecumenical Council would have more substance and application to our lives, I think… "
Maybe, for me its a matter of “both and” rather than “either or”.

Take care.

 

[Dan_471]

Dan if you cannot yet see that the above are but different consequences of he same reality then you probably haven’t quite got what I am saying.

well, right, I don’t understand what you’re saying… or perhaps I am understanding what you’re saying and it contains a conflict…

Its very simple but, like seeing holographic pictures in confused images - you either get it all or not at all.

The simple fact is we never saw or heard Jesus for ourselves. We rely on a “medium” for the transmission of Jesus’s teaching. That medium is culture (the product of humans other than Jesus who “get in the way”). In the end the author of the teaching you and I get is “the Church”. But there is no longer one Church but many churches. Each “authors” JC’s life/teaching significantly differently though - that is why you find it hard to understand the RC view.

Which is true? Obviously each Church’s views has to be in some fashion consistent with the past. But as many pieces of the jigsaw are missing one can draw consistent but different conclusions from the limited data available. Only you can decide - hopefully by opening up to the influernce of the Holy Spirit that leads us all to the truth.

ah, but I think this assumes that I haven’t opened up to the Holy Spirit… the evidence of that being that I don’t see it the way you do… of course, each person thinks that they are open to the Spirit… I can allow that you are fully open to the Spirit, and that He (It?) is leading you into deeper relationship with the RCC… now, can you allow that someone else might be open to the Spirit, and not feel drawn to the RCC?

Catholics would say that, over time, a curious, sincere, unbiased person free of the influence of historic religious attatchment would be led (by that blind experience of the immediacy of “God” you spoke of above) ) to faith in the Chist/Church taught by the Catholic Church. But then we would say that wouldn’t we . And no person like that prob exists anyhow.

I’m hearing faith… and as I said before, nothing wrong with that… in the first post of this thread I wrote
“we can’t really be sure if Jesus actually said it… apart from faith, choosing to believe He said it…”
…so the answer so far, is faith, believe that He said it…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

ah, but I think this assumes that I haven’t opened up to the Holy Spirit… the evidence of that being that I don’t see it the way you do… of course, each person thinks that they are open to the Spirit… can you allow that someone else might be open to the Spirit, and not feel drawn to the RCC?

Dan this is the very crux of your issues … but you still cannot see it .

YOU are the non-Catholic actively poking around a Catholic Forum not ME poking around a Protestant Forum. I don’t know how fully you are or are not open to the HS and I don’t care because it is none of my business. That is between you and God. If you sincerely feel called to come to God through Protestantism that is what you have to do. If you feel called to take Catholicism more seriously then that is what you have to do.

But you have to start making up your mind if this is the case - intellectual pussyfooting around like this is not following the Holy Spirit. In this thread at the moment it seems like some sort of blind-mans buff where we are little more than imaginary adversaries for you. You seem to be externalising some sort of internal conflict somehow trying to win people here over to your present stance … which you yourself are not comfortable with. Your internal conflict, if it exists, can only be resolved by making small decisions resulting in new action. From there comes the personal certitude and inner security you seem to be seeking.

An other words it is really YOU in your own self that needs to be convinced, not me, not this Forum, not the world. I am quite secure in my own religious position thanks. It doesn’t worry me that you see things differently. Of course my position may not prove to be right. So what. What matters is that “I” know I am following the HS to (almost) the best of my abilities. I will correct any misapprehensions I have now in the future gradually as time and the HS allows, not now. The HS gives us that freedom - it sets us free. Who cares what church that leads to? I don’t. In the end it isn’t about finding church, its about finding Christ/God. .

You do the same and all will be well.

If you want my kind advice it is as I have been saying above…you need to involve your heart not just your head. Your head is way over-working this issue. Don’t live your life like you are living this thread as it doesn’t lead to personal security or conviction. Nobody said our convictions have to be right - they simply need to be getting better and better every day…by being open to the fact we may be wrong but staying the path until we see otherwise. It always is otherwise…but we don’t see that until we turn the next corner. We don’t get to that next corner by sitting on a stool at the previous corner wondering if the next corner is the right corner . We have to get off our bums and actually walk to that corner (ie make little decisions in accord with our present assessments) to find out. Sometimes we find from the next corner that we have to retreat back to the previous corner and look for another corner. That happens less often to me these days. Like riding a bike. You get a feel for the wind and the curve of the road as time goes by.

 

[Dan_471]

That sifting for the truth amongst the static and the noise of received culture of course is something we all have to every day of our lives regardless of what church we adhere to. Not everything is dogma, not everything that gets voiced in a pulpit is of God and not everything we read in the bible or the Church Fathers is readily understood.

Ok, with you so far…

What is truth? Its an interplay of many processes and, strangely, both public and personal in the end. It always involves a personal choice and so a risk. Few things are absolutely clear. Many things are approximately right.

Right… like the opening of Mark, where Jesus says “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”… I think that’s probably an accurate quote… the story of the Good Samaritan… I like it, it’s probably my favorite… but it’s quoted only in Luke, even tho all four (I think) Gospels mention the preceding ‘what’s the greatest commandment’ part… did Jesus say the part in Matthew 16? If the Church was going to be God’s vessel for communicating truth to the world, I would like a stronger, more well-attested connection with Jesus and His resurrection… yes, I’m willing to consider that I’ve got it all wrong… but it looks right to me, at this time…

Is there a clear real word for word quote of anything Jesus said?

I think maybe the 'eli eli…" words from the cross… that makes sense…

How would we know for sure if there was?

well, there could be different levels of certainty… that’s what I’m exploring… how strong is the connection, the level of certainty, between Jesus and the RCC…

In the end its a tradition that tells us Jesus’ mind/teachings.

yes, tradition… I agree that’s probably the strongest connection

These traditions by and large agree on the basics.

well, yes, tho there may have been some level of suppression of people with different viewpoints… so the surviving tradition is what we have… that kind of thing is hard to track down, tho, I agree…

 

[LilyM]

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!

Page wouldn’t load for me… should I try again later?

Right, I’m with you there… the text we have today is pretty much what the authors wrote… the question in my mind is did the authors write what was accurate?

Right, assuming that Jesus did make those claims… I think it’s interesting that the latest-written Gospel - John - contains (imo) the biggest claims… almost like as more time went by, people thought He made bigger and bigger claims

But why? Do people believe stranger and stranger things about any other historical figure as time goes on? Julius Caesar? George Washington? Even major religious figures like Peter and Paul themselves? Never as far as I am aware.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

But why? Do people believe stranger and stranger things about any other historical figure as time goes on? Julius Caesar? George Washington? Even major religious figures like Peter and Paul themselves? Never as far as I am aware.

People seem to have no problem believing in things Alexander the Great did or said or had done. The wars are obvious, yes, but what about the little intricacies that history records? His specific actions, his deeds, his words? The history of Alexander was not recorded for hundreds of years. People believe that Alexander did and said the things he is attributed as saying and doing. Same with the Caesars. Yet Christ, who had Testaments written about him within the lifetime of eyewitnesses (even written BY eyewitnesses), is disregarded as fable. It befuddles me that all of history is not merely considered a bedtime story.

 

[Dan_471]

yes, I guess you could see it as simplistic… I would see it as ‘straightforward’… Paul presents how he got his teaching in a straightforward fashion…

Catholics don’t necessarily believe the simplistic/literal explanation is the real one - even if its usualkly the starting one.

sounds good

possibly… I hadn’t thought of that before… I thought you were saying that he sought teaching and legitmization from the Apostles… torturing them would be an odd way to go about it… I heard that he killed Christians… do we have evidence that he tortured them?.. especially to get info?

I am saying it would be naiive to conclude that Paul derived his knowledge of Jesus’s teachings and historical details from a personal revelation…especially just because he said so himself.

ok, now , do you mean that Paul says he got his teaching from personal revelation? if so, I would agree (please let me know if I misunderstood you there)… I think that’s what he’s saying in Galatians 1… of course, he may have actually got info from the other Christians / Apostles, yes… he thinks he got the bulk of it from revelation… it strikes me that his letters show very little knowledge of Jesus’ life from the Gospels… since he thinks he got it from personal revelation, it doesn’t make sense to me that he’s going to the Apostles to get his message ‘checked out’… especially since he probably thinks of himself as much more educated than they are… and probably right about that… he might be meeting them to find out some more personal details of Jesus’ life, but that’s a different thing, I think…

Paul is rehabed with Cornelius? I hadn’t heard that… where is the story found?

Dan there is a question mark after “Cornelius” … I am confident you would know exactly who I really meant.

No, actually, I don’t… I’m not familiar with a story of Paul rehabing with a person… the phrase that sticks in my mind is ‘I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood’ (quoted from memory, but I think it’s close)… I thought you put the question mark there as a way of saying “right?” or, “Are you with me?”

That you comment here, and in this way, says a lot about your personality.

what way? what does it say? I think I have a pretty high level of confidence, so I’m interested in hearing what you’re getting at…

Its worth reflecting on if you can accept I make this observation without malice.

totally… I’m ready to reflect / consider…

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 didn’t say that RC is identical with the Church of Christ…

Ok, an interesting turn… I wasn’t expecting that… does the Church of Christ have a visible hierarchy? if so, is it the same as the visible hierarchy of the RCC?

I said all churches participate in the Church of Christ in varying degrees. That variance in participation is probably on a number of different dimensions but the main one is probably fulness of teaching’s held.

The RCC doesn’t hold fully to the teachings of Chirst? is it in the number one position? in your opinion, what church or group is in the number two spot?

I’m interested in hearing what your thoughts are on this… does God require us to accept what is not true? if not, then are we required to keep all the teachings of the RCC? if not, then it doesn’t look to me like it’s a very strong hierarchy that God has established in the RCC… comments?

 

[Dan_471]

I wasn’t expecting that… the RCC needs the other groups? what role do the other groups play in helping the RCC to live out it’s mission?

If Christ desired all his followers to be One, and one of those groups was charged with responsibility for that charism/role (the See of Peter) then… as long as the churches are divided then Peter must in some way be judged to have failed (at best) or be at fault (at worst). It takes two to tango.

Peter is charged with the role of keeping the followers of Christ united? Ok, I hadn’t heard that… also, I don’t quite understand your answer to the part about what role the other churches/groups play in helping the RCC (or the body of Christ) live out its mission…

well, if engaging in apologetics sounds to you like fence sitting, then guilty as charged… it doesn’t look like fence sitting to me.

When faith is no more than an intellectual exercise of alleged reason and objectivity and we pretend the heart, and leaps beyond the rational/seen, don’t come into it - that is what I call fence sitting. You are simply checking, as you put it, that your understanding of RC’s is correct. Its all in vain. You will not really understand RCs (or what I am saying) because you seem to intentionally try and leave your heart out of the picture by excessively intellectualising/objectifying the discussion as some sort of scientific method.

well, I don’t know how to engage in apologetics discussions without using / relying on rationalism… I think that’s the key of apologetics, actually… as far as the ‘heart feelings’ go, as I put it in the opening of the Foundations of the Church’ thread (are you on that one too ? I don’t remember…), what does one do if the drawing isn’t there? for myself, and I don’t remember if I said this already or not, I actually feel a sort of anti-drawing towards the Curch… that is, the Spirit kind of leading me away from the RCC… that is, if I’m in tune with the Spirit there…
I disagree that it’s all in vain… I’ve learned a lot, and especially, on the whole, I’ve really, really enjoyed my experiences here…

"… there seems to be a kind of ‘back-to-the-Bible’ movement among many RC’s… it seems to be, tho I’m not sure about this, associated with EWTN… or maybe it’s that being able to say ‘the Bible says’ seems to carry more weight than ‘the Council at Ephesus decided’… or take the "the Bible says’ versus ‘Vatican II said’, even tho according RC doctrine, the ecumenical Council would have more substance and application to our lives, I think… "

Maybe, for me its a matter of “both and” rather than “either or”.

that sounds good… kind of like in Ecclesiastes how it says ’ it is good to lay hold of one thing and not let go of another’ or something like that… so, ok, also tho, to your ears, which sounds like it has more punch to it: ‘the Bible says…’ or, ‘the Council at Ephesus decided…’

Take care.

Thanks. You, too.

 

[Dan_471]

Blue_Horizon:
say, Blue, one more question about Peter being responsible for the unity of believers… how old is that tradition? or maybe I want to ask when it was first written down? do you know where I might find it?

 

[Dan_471]

Blue_Horizon:
say, here’s another thought about the heart and rationalism… should we say that RC-ism is really for the people who lean more towards the heart and want to leave the head more behind? or, perhaps a ‘both and’… in that case, I think what I’m atempting to do is resolve the head piece…

 

[Dan_471]

Originally Posted by Dan_471
ah, but I think this assumes that I haven’t opened up to the Holy Spirit… the evidence of that being that I don’t see it the way you do… of course, each person thinks that they are open to the Spirit… can you allow that someone else might be open to the Spirit, and not feel drawn to the RCC?

Dan this is the very crux of your issues … but you still cannot see it .

Well, I agree that I don’t see it the way you do, yes…

YOU are the non-Catholic actively poking around a Catholic Forum

well, yes, at the invitation of the Forum and the Apostles (“come and see”)

not ME poking around a Protestant Forum. I don’t know how fully you are or are not open to the HS

well, let’s see… when you wrote earlier above “hopefully by opening up to the influernce of the Holy Spirit” that sounded to me like you were pretty sure…

and I don’t care because it is none of my business.

I think you care some

That is between you and God. If you sincerely feel

really? it’s all about sincere feelings? I’m cool with that…are you sure you really are?
If so, I’d like to get your opinion on something then… suppose a person is Catholic, likes being Catholic, but being a modern North American, disagrees with the Church’s teaching on contraceptives… and they disagree with sincere feelings… should they ignore the Church’s teaching on this, then?

called to come to God through Protestantism

just Protestantism, or are there other avenues open?

that is what you have to do. If you feel called to take Catholicism more seriously

I do take it seriously, consider its claims seriously…

then that is what you have to do.

But you have to start making up your mind

is there a clock around somewhere? I think taking one’s time is a wise course of action before committing…

if this is the case - intellectual pussyfooting

I don’t think I would choose that word… in any case, I don’t think that’s what I’m doing… altho cats do like to explore, I’ll go with that…

around like this is not following the Holy Spirit.

Ah, now, do tell me how you know this… myself, I don’t think God likes us to commit to things we’re uncertain about…

 

[Dan_471]

(continued)

---

bit of aside, here…
in the above I talked about ‘commit’… it does take a commitment to join the RCC, yes? I’m speaking as an outsider, of course… I think that’s correct… I mean, you can of course come and sit in the pews and stuff, but to fully participate in the Sacraments some sort of statement of commitment is required… you can’t just come and try it out for awhile…

---

In this thread at the moment it seems like some sort of blind-mans buff where we are little more than imaginary adversaries for you.

not following you here… in apologetics there’s generally two or more ‘sides’… kind of like tennis… you bat things back and forth… but you’re certainly not imaginary…

You seem to be externalising some sort of internal conflict somehow trying to win people here over to your present stance …

if people think that what I’m saying makes more sense than what they currently think, then, yes, they should change…but if what I’m saying just confirms what they already think, they should stay where they are…

which you yourself are not comfortable with.

I’m learning and growing, so, yes, some level of discomfort…

Your internal conflict, if it exists, can only be resolved by making small decisions resulting in new action.

sure, small informed decisions… and as part of that, gathering new information… checking to see if one overlooked something…

From there comes the personal certitude and inner security you seem to be seeking.

An other words it is really YOU in your own self that needs to be convinced,

sounds good

not me, not this Forum, not the world.

ok

I am quite secure in my own religious position thanks.

apologetics is all about going back and forth, I think…

It doesn’t worry me that you see things differently. Of course my position may not prove to be right. So what.

for me, that’s a big ‘so what’… I like to explore ideas to see how they might turn out… thus having a better idea of what might ‘prove to be right’…or, perhaps better, what might turn out to be a better idea…

What matters is that “I” know I am following the HS to (almost) the best of my abilities.

good… go with that…

I will correct any misapprehensions I have now in the future gradually as time and the HS allows, not now.

perhaps your time here on this thread is part of the Holy Spirit’s leading…

The HS gives us that freedom - it sets us free.

sounds great!

Who cares what church that leads to?

some people care a lot…

I don’t.

see, me neither… perhaps we actually think a lot more alike than it first appeared… it looks like we actually have some very similar ideas, in the end…

In the end it isn’t about finding church, its about finding Christ/God. .

Yes, I agree

You do the same and all will be well.

yes, ‘and also with you…’

If you want my kind advice

sure, more info always good

it is as I have been saying above…you need to involve your heart not just your head. Your head is way over-working this issue.

well, you know, this is an internet apologetics forum, so one will see a lot of ‘head’ action… in any case, I think the ‘head’ stuff is part of how the Holy Spirit leads me…

Don’t live your life like you are living this thread

very true… big difference between the internet and real life… at the same time, this is a great place to try out new ideas… and be exposed to and interact with people who think differently…

as it doesn’t lead to personal security or conviction. Nobody said our convictions have to be right - they simply need to be getting better and better every day…by being open to the fact we may be wrong but staying the path until we see otherwise. It always is otherwise…but we don’t see that until we turn the next corner. We don’t get to that next corner by sitting on a stool at the previous corner wondering if the next corner is the right corner . We have to get off our bums and actually walk to that corner (ie make little decisions in accord with our present assessments) to find out. Sometimes we find from the next corner that we have to retreat back to the previous corner and look for another corner. That happens less often to me these days. Like riding a bike. You get a feel for the wind and the curve of the road as time goes by.

yes, that sounds good… for me, part of the not staying on the ‘stool’ and getting out and riding the bike is exploring new ideas… and a great place to do that is the internet… some people like to read books, and I like to read 'em too… the great thing about a forum like this is that you get to reply to the ‘author’, and ask questions and stuff…

if I may also observe, in that last part you wrote, which I hear kind of at least in part as a ‘every one do what is right in their own eyes’, going with sincere feelings, taking small steps in those feeling directions… if I may observe it sounds like a kind of Protestant approach… it sounds good to me, I just wanted to observe that…

Peace be with you

 

[Dan_471]

(one more idea)

say, I wanted to talk just for a minute about the leading of the Holy Spirit… I thought, and I could be wrong about this, but I thought that the basic position of the Church is that the Holy Spirit leads the Church as a whole… if one wants to be led by the Spirit, be part of the Church… in that supporting the Church and taking an active role in Her activities, one is participating in the leading of the Holy Spirit… the emphasis on personal leading, I thought, again tho I could be wrong, was more of Protestant, or certain kinds of Protestant kind of thing…

 

[Dan_471]

Dan_471 wrote:
Right, I’m with you there… the text we have today is pretty much what the authors wrote… the question in my mind is did the authors write what was accurate?
Right, assuming that Jesus did make those claims… I think it’s interesting that the latest-written Gospel - John - contains (imo) the biggest claims… almost like as more time went by, people thought He made bigger and bigger claims

But why? Do people believe stranger and stranger things about any other historical figure as time goes on?

yes, sometimes…

Julius Caesar?

I googled “legends about Julius Caesar” and found a couple interesting sites…

ancienthistory.about.com/cs/caesarjulius/f/didcaesarsayit.htm

vroma.org/~bmcmanus/caesar.html

apparently the idea that Julius Caesar was born by Caesarean Section is common…

George Washington?

well, George would be after the time of the printing press, so less oral history going on there, I think… still, we have the story of the chopping of the cherry tree…
oddly (to me), there is apparently a quote many people attribute to Julius Caesar that stems from 9/11 or something…

Even major religious figures like Peter

in the Apocalypse of Peter, it is said that he has an amazing vision of heaven…

and Paul themselves?
Never as far as I am aware.

well, check out my (very brief) research, and see what you think…

 

[Dan_471]

People seem to have no problem believing in things Alexander the Great did or said or had done.

a lot has to do with the kinds of things being claimed, I think… that a person could raise and army and traipse around Asia is not outlandish…

The wars are obvious, yes, but what about the little intricacies that history records?

I would be more questioning of those…

His specific actions, his deeds, his words? The history of Alexander was not recorded for hundreds of years. People believe that Alexander did and said the things he is attributed as saying and doing.

they might benefit from more critical thinking

Same with the Caesars. Yet Christ, who had Testaments written about him within the lifetime of eyewitnesses (even written BY eyewitnesses), is disregarded as fable.

I certainly don’t regard the Gospels as fables, tho I do think that there could be some level of exaggeration here or there…

It befuddles me that all of history is not merely considered a bedtime story.

people would probably do well to be more skeptical of most histories, I think…