Did - Or Did Not - Jesus Know?

[rcjones]

Wow! You really have been doing some studying. Although you did not address the question I raised in this thread, your references are certainly interesting. I do see certain correlations between the verses you list, yet not between them all.

I think I was trying to address the issue. As I understood it, you were looking at the expectation that he would return in that generation. In this answer he did return in that generation and in every generation since that has read it.

In fact, I find some of your conclusions unlikely. Upon what authority do you interpret Matthew in this way? I ask because only the Church has the authority to accurately interpret scripture, which is one of the facts which separates us from our Protestant brothers. If each of us could interpret scripture for ourselves, according to our own inclination (as many Prtotestants do) the Truth would certainly become clouded by differing views.

I am using a Jewish hermeneutic that was available in the first century known as the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer. It is significantly different than tradition western methods, and when I first saw it had the same reservations as you. Once you get used to it, it becomes child’s play and literally, children can do it.

My conclusions are all tentative, and I have been trying to get others to review my work. It is one of the reasons I am here in this forum. I believe that the church would encourage everyone to read the Bible and try to understand it, but that such understandings should be held with intellectual humility and not taught as doctrine without approval. But I wouldn’t be able to speak for the church on the matter.

This very fact makes me a bit uneasy whenever I open the bible to read by myself…because .there are various ways to interpret the words. However, the Church seems not to be doing a very good job at offering interpretation to the average lay Catholic. (When was the last time a priest told you during his homily where we might find accurate interpretations of the scriptures to accompany our reading?) We are left to our own devices to search out authentic Church teaching on many matters - biblical and otherwise.

I am neither Catholic nor Protestant. When I got saved there was no one there and I have no family tradition. One might say that I am Sola Scriptura by default, not by choice. Even saying that, I read and value the writings of early church fathers, but compare what they say to the scriptures. So I guess I see them as elder brothers, sort of. But when the boat is sinking you grab on to whatever floats. So I am unable to comment on what the church has or hasn’t done.

Aside from this, though, the Church does acknowledge that we each face an individual judgment when we die. However, we will all also face a general judgment at the end of “times”. This is, at least, inferred when we read/hear that Our Lady suffered her heart to be pierced so that “the thoughts of many may be revealed”. But it is implied that a general judgment (with all souls present together) is necessary for such revelations. Also God’s JUSTICE will be manifested to all creatures when we witness the “rerun” of each individual’s life, the graces given him/her, and how that grace was accepted and used for God’s glory…or ignored and wasted.

So, yes, I think that a “second coming” equates to the revelation of God’s justice…and mercy…before all mankind. It may be comforting to reason, by our own interpretations, that the frightening aspects of the Last Judgment “are not necessary”, but, it seems, God has ordained that it be so for the magnification of His own mercy and glory - so that no one will be able to say the God was wrong or unfair for any reason, because “all that has been hidden will be revealed”.

I am not sure how well the proposed solution fits with authorized doctrine. As I said it is a plausible way to reconcile seemingly contradictory expectations for an immediate return with the very long period that has passed.

Since I can find no documentation of the sequential parallels elsewhere, they should be validated by others. Dr, Gage at John Knox seminary has found similar patterns in John and Revelation, and Luke and Acts.

I would also say that I am confident that there is nothing dangerous in scriptures. It speaks of Christ. If you believe that his sheep hear his voice, then listen to his voice in scriptures and in elder brothers. I don’t think we should be nervous about reading them.

 

[K_C]

We need to be careful not to assume that the coming of the Son of man on clouds means that the Son must be coming to earth. Jesus lifted the “Son of man” language directly out of Daniel.

As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him, He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.(Daniel 7:13-14)…

The prophecies in Daniel, the Transiguration, the Olivet Discourse, and the trial of Jesus, are all relating to the same event. Jesus publicly came His Kingdom in 70 A.D. when He judged the Sanhedrin and destroyed the Temple (built to be a miniature replica of the world). It was the public end of the Old Testament era. It all occurred within the generation that Jesus had promised. At the same time, the judgment of 70 A.D. is a prophecy of the final eschaton.

If you want a more indepth explaination than that I suggest you read the book “Rapture” by David B. Currie.

Peace

That is very interesting! However, although I do not know much about the destruction of the temple, I thought I had heard that it was razed by an enemy army. One could argue that Christ motivated them, of course. But then one could argue God’s power as being present in every battle too. That is, what outward sign makes us think that this is the “return” promised by Jesus?

I think that the apostles took His words literally when He said “You shall SEE (me) riding on the clouds of heaven.” Yes, it is possible that He was merely quoting Daniel. But the question remains: Why was He being so unclear on this point, knowing that the apostles did not understand…esp. when He clarified so many other teachings for them?

 

[K_C]

Wow, I’m impressed by the amount of study involved by some of the posters…but it would serve the individual better to worry about one’s own personal judgement rather than the judgement of the world! The Rapture trap has mawing jaws! and swallows those who tread there without much support. Be careful.

Peace,

Gail

Of course, I am as interested in the debate around the “rapture” as anyone else. However, my question centers on the intentions of Jesus in allowing His disciples to misunderstand. Furthermore, when Peter once asked Him directly if His words were meant only for them (apostles, disciples) or for all men, Christ did not even answer him!??

 

[K_C]

I think I was trying to address the issue. As I understood it, you were looking at the expectation that he would return in that generation. In this answer he did return in that generation and in every generation since that has read it.

Correct. I apologize. You listed so many other issues that I guess I did not focus on the part that applied to my question very well.

I am using a Jewish hermeneutic that was available in the first century known as the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer. It is significantly different than tradition western methods, and when I first saw it had the same reservations as you. Once you get used to it, it becomes child’s play and literally, children can do it.

My conclusions are all tentative, and I have been trying to get others to review my work. It is one of the reasons I am here in this forum. I believe that the church would encourage everyone to read the Bible and try to understand it, but that such understandings should be held with intellectual humility and not taught as doctrine without approval. But I wouldn’t be able to speak for the church on the matter.

Thank you for being so frank about your position. It is important to know which statements are confirmed and which are “works in progress”.

I am neither Catholic nor Protestant. When I got saved there was no one there and I have no family tradition.

Well, it is obvious that someONE was there!

One might say that I am Sola Scriptura by default, not by choice. Even saying that, I read and value the writings of early church fathers, but compare what they say to the scriptures. So I guess I see them as elder brothers, sort of. But when the boat is sinking you grab on to whatever floats. So I am unable to comment on what the church has or hasn’t done.

You are to be commended. It is clear that you are willing to work hard to discern God’s path for you. We all approach Him by different routes but, with persistence and humility, we all arrive where He is to be found. Keep up the good work!

I am not sure how well the proposed solution fits with authorized doctrine. As I said it is a plausible way to reconcile seemingly contradictory expectations for an immediate return with the very long period that has passed.

I am sure that I have heard a similar statement in the past which was Church teaching: that “antiChrist” is thought to take several different forms at different times in history. So it is certainly possible that Christ’s return might have multiple meanings also.

Since I can find no documentation of the sequential parallels elsewhere, they should be validated by others. Dr, Gage at John Knox seminary has found similar patterns in John and Revelation, and Luke and Acts.

Isn’t it fascinating how many intricate patterns God has woven into His scripture? I was amazed when we studied all the “prefigures” of Christ throughout the OT too.

I would also say that I am confident that there is nothing dangerous in scriptures. It speaks of Christ. If you believe that his sheep hear his voice, then listen to his voice in scriptures and in elder brothers. I don’t think we should be nervous about reading them.

I understand what you mean. I am not afraid to listen for His voice “between the lines” of scripture as they apply to my own life and particular concerns at that moment. I only meant that I hesitate to interpret the meaning of any specific passage for others. My insights are meant for me, but the Church’s interpretations are necessary for any interpretation that applies to all.

Thanks so much for your helpful insights!

 

[Swan]

That is very interesting! However, although I do not know much about the destruction of the temple, I thought I had heard that it was razed by an enemy army. One could argue that Christ motivated them, of course. But then one could argue God’s power as being present in every battle too. That is, what outward sign makes us think that this is the “return” promised by Jesus?

I think that the apostles took His words literally when He said “You shall SEE (me) riding on the clouds of heaven.” Yes, it is possible that He was merely quoting Daniel. But the question remains: Why was He being so unclear on this point, knowing that the apostles did not understand…esp. when He clarified so many other teachings for them?

This is an issue for me as well. I agree that the apostles clearly believed in a literal return in the not-too-distant future. So do we conclude that they were wrong (seems obvious that they were) and if they were wrong on that score (and they heard it from Jesus’s lips) what else might they have been wrong about? And these are the guys we got the gospels from, so I think that’s a really important question.

 

[ryanoneil]

That is very interesting! However, although I do not know much about the destruction of the temple, I thought I had heard that it was razed by an enemy army.

One could argue that Christ motivated them, of course. But then one could argue God’s power as being present in every battle too.

That is, what outward sign makes us think that this is the “return” promised by Jesus?

Yes, it was razed by the Roman Army.

One could argue that. Many would insist there needs to be scriptural proof.

There are many signs Jesus referes to in Luke for example. Have you read post #3?

I think that the apostles took His words literally when He said “You shall SEE (me) riding on the clouds of heaven.” Yes, it is possible that He was merely quoting Daniel. But the question remains:

Why was He being so unclear on this point, knowing that the apostles did not understand…esp. when He clarified so many other teachings for them?

Why do you think the apostles took his words literally?

Did you notice what Isaiah said in post #3. “See, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud on his way to Egypt” That didn’t happen literally.

I don’t know why Jesus instructed the apostles the way he did, and I can’t say how much they understood.

But, Jesus did give very specific details including eight signs and five amplifications. The only thing he didn’t tell them was the day or the hour.

You raise a good question though. Wouldn’t it have been easier for Jesus to reveal his glory (at the transfiguration) to all of Israel instead of a few apostles. It’s a mystery I don’t know the answer to.

Peace

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, it was razed by the Roman Army.

The way I understand it, the Roman commander wanted to strip the Temple of its gold before destroying it, but it caught fire in the mayhem before it could be ransacked. Because of that, all the gold in the temple melted and pooled into the cracks in the floor. The Romans had to tear out the entire floor brick by brick in order to get all the gold out of it. This is the reason that no stone was left unturned in the destruction of the temple, just as Jesus had prophesied.

Another ironic tidbit - IIf I remember correctly, most of the treasure that was removed from the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple went to Rome and financed the construction of the Coliseum, which of course was the site of so many Christian persecutions. I don’t know where I heard that from, though.

 

[rcjones]

I was amazed when we studied all the “prefigures” of Christ throughout the OT too.

I am interested in what materials you used. So far I have been unable to find the shadows that I am seeing anywhere.

I see a picture of the birth of Christ in the Tamar story. Each of the Judges is a shadow of Christ.

In Gen 2:21 since Adam is a shadow of Christ, sleep = death, the word for rib also means limping and side, took also means married, etc.

The shadow hidden in double entendre says “And God caused Christ to die and he died, and he married his limping side, and redeemed man.” The words can be verified in a Hebrew dictionary. Of course his “limping side” is the one with the bruised heel.

So I am hoping to find others who either have seen these or can see them.

 

[ryanoneil]

The way I understand it, the Roman commander wanted to strip the Temple of its gold before destroying it, but it caught fire in the mayhem before it could be ransacked. Because of that, all the gold in the temple melted and pooled into the cracks in the floor. The Romans had to tear out the entire floor brick by brick in order to get all the gold out of it. This is the reason that no stone was left unturned in the destruction of the temple, just as Jesus had prophesied.

Another ironic tidbit - IIf I remember correctly, most of the treasure that was removed from the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple went to Rome and financed the construction of the Coliseum, which of course was the site of so many Christian persecutions. I don’t know where I heard that from, though.

I seem to rember hearing that as well.

Not to get to far off subject, but the human cost of the war was huge. I think it was something like an estimated 2.7 million people were trapped inside Jerusalem, when the Romans invaded, because it was Passover. And something like 1 million people were killed just in the last 5 months of the seige. That is scary.

 

[NotWorthy]

I seem to rember hearing that as well.

Not to get to far off subject, but the human cost of the war was huge. I think it was something like an estimated 2.7 million people were trapped inside Jerusalem, when the Romans invaded, because it was Passover. And something like 1 million people were killed just in the last 5 months of the seige. That is scary.

Josephus verifies that there were 1 million lambs slain during that last Passover in 70AD.

 

[BRB]

You raise a good question though. Wouldn’t it have been easier for Jesus to reveal his glory (at the transfiguration) to all of Israel instead of a few apostles.

God spoke highly of the faith of those who believe w/o having to be convinced with their human eyes.

Christ was always amazed that many Jews could witness his miracles of healing … and yet walk away w/o believing him to be Son of God, and worse yet … suggesting Christ was in league with satan.

Even if Christ had been transfigured before all of Hebrews … many would of chosen to continue under the Law of Moses & not worship him as King under New Convenant terms.

God doesn’t need/desire to prove himself to us in visible ways. He does encourage us to open our spiritual eyes/ears … and to be believing via faith, as taught by Church.

 

[K_C]

This is an issue for me as well. I agree that the apostles clearly believed in a literal return in the not-too-distant future. So do we conclude that they were wrong (seems obvious that they were) and if they were wrong on that score (and they heard it from Jesus’s lips) what else might they have been wrong about? And these are the guys we got the gospels from, so I think that’s a really important question.

I raised this question hoping to hear some good possibilities as to why Jesus seemed to allow misunderstandings in the minds of his apostles. However, I am sorry and apologize if I added to anyone else’s confusion or - worse yet - doubts about the gospels. That was certainly not my intent.

I have no doubts about the gospels because I believe that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. IF the resurrection was false, it is said, THEN Christ was false because this was the final proof of the Truth of His messages. But, of course, all the apostles testify to the resurrection - and at great personal cost. All but John were put to death as well, some in a most horrific way. It makes no sense at all, on a human level, that they would succumb willingly to such terrible ends unless they truly believed in all that they professed, i.e. in Christ. Obviously, it would take a great deal of persuasion to get any man to be willing to die a tortuous death.

Christ gave them this motivation - in His many miracles and in His resurrection. Although they wrote the gospels at different times in their lives and in different locations in the world, although there at times seem to be slight variations in their accounts, we can be certain that this is only because they, like us, were human and prone to different viewpoints. That is, they each focused more on particular aspects of Christ’s life (as most of us would do, having different intellects and interests) and it makes perfect sense that some details might escape them.

The important “core” of the gospels is what really matters. Despite the unique qualities of the evangelists and apostles, the central theme of Resurrection and Redemption are the same…and they were willing to die for Christ.

I remain mystified by the fact that Jesus was not always clear in His meaning - not even, apparently, for His followers and friends. However, maybe this is because He, being aware of their particular limitations, knew it was best to simply allow them to work out these meanings as their lives progressed - each in his own unique way.

I guess what I am saying is that the shortcomings of the very human apostles is no reason to doubt the importance of their message and their subsequent deaths. Similarly, the way in which the gospels were written may also reflect the apparent contradictions in the way Jesus chose to communicate with his people - even His chosen ones. Perhaps there were times when He, rather than disclosing His full meaning, chose to allow us the benefit of struggling to understand - and the graces we might earn by doing so.

A SEPARATE NOTE: I have been “away” from the forums for some time. When I used to post, I noticed that each of them showed a listing of moderators at the bottom of the forum listings. I now wonder if any of the C.A. apologists still monitor the forums. As we can see from this particular exchange (above), I think that is very important in order for Catholic Answers to remain true to the nature of its mission - to inform the laity of the CHURCH’S responses to inquiries. However, I have been notified that the apologists are apparently also inundated now with questions from “snail mail” and by FAX. Not only that, some are even attempting to answer questions on and for EWTN as well.

In short, while all here are trying to better understand our faith and where the Church stands on particular matters, if there are no longer any moderators guiding these forums, it is now a matter of “the blind leading the blind”. Although the Holy Spirit may, of course, intervene, I think that we need guidance by someone who can speak authoritatively for the Church on these boards. Otherwise, there is a distinct danger that we may lead each other even further astray.

If a moderator (working for Catholic Answers in San Diego, that is) sees this message, I would like to hear what assurance Catholic Answers can offer us today that we ARE still being guided by trained apologists and not simply left to our own guesses and confusion.

 

[ryanoneil]

God spoke highly of the faith of those who believe w/o having to be convinced with their human eyes.

Christ was always amazed that many Jews could witness his miracles of healing … and yet walk away w/o believing him to be Son of God, and worse yet … suggesting Christ was in league with satan.

Even if Christ had been transfigured before all of Hebrews … many would of chosen to continue under the Law of Moses & not worship him as King under New Convenant terms.

God doesn’t need/desire to prove himself to us in visible ways. He does encourage us to open our spiritual eyes/ears … and to be believing via faith, as taught by Church.

I agree. Jesus’ followers were also confussed when He said “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood”, and many stopped following him. Could Jesus have done a better job of explaining? Did He know it wouldn’t make a difference?

I think it’s fair to say the apostles were pretty confused also, even at the last supper. Jesus explained many things to them after the resurrection though. Wouldn’t it be nice if all of that was written down. It wasn’t though, which is why sacred tradition is so imortant. IMHO

 

[BRB]

Jesus’ followers were also confussed when He said “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood”, and many stopped following him. Could Jesus have done a better job of explaining? Did He know it wouldn’t make a difference?

Do we really desire to be spoonfed ? Nothing is more satisfying that looking at scripture from every angle …until it finally makes a lasting impact on us.

God gave us brains/intellect … and desires us to use them. Those who stopped following Jesus were ones who didn’t take the time to come up to Jesus afterwards and ask questions. They prejudged him and his Words.

Professors hate it when after a lecture everyone closes notebooks and walks out w/o asking questions.

We are judged on basis of what we are capable of understanding and how we use our talents in service of Christ.

 

[ryanoneil]

Do we really desire to be spoonfed ? Nothing is more satisfying that looking at scripture from every angle …until it finally makes a lasting impact on us.

I need to apologize for getting off the topic, playing devil’s advocate, and asking rhetorical question. (in case I’m being misunderstood)

The actions of the Jerusalm Church in the years surrounding the Jewish-Roman War, answer the OP’s question for us. The early Christians fled Jerusalm before the Temple was destroyed (despite all the history of their nation hiding behind the Jerusalem’s walls) because Jesus told them exactly what they needed to hear.

The Judean Church believed the warning of Jesus. They fled and they survived. This is the clearest evidence of how the early Church originally understood these verses.

 

[tito]

I certainly share the enthusiasm at learning what this means and wish to comment. First, by the mere nature of God, Holiness is a central attribute indicating infinite purity and virtue, and Jesus, fully God and fully man can not lie or deceive. God the Son has two natures, divine and human, unlike the Father and the H. Spirit who have divine natures. Philipians ch 2 v.5-11, St. Paul explains the ‘emptying’ of Christ, where the concept is that Jesus, even thouh He was God and Man, placed himself voluntarily under the authority of the Father and chose to know only what the Father willed to reveal to him in His humanity, in total obedience to the Father. In Matt., there are times when it says that He knew what the phareesees and scribes were thinking before they even asked a question. At another time, as in Matt24v3, the apostles asked Him about the time of His 2nd coming,and the answer was given in verse 36, “but of that day and hour no one knows…nor the Son, but the Father alone”. The answer is that about certain things not revealed to his human nature, He truly did not know.He was neither lying nor deceiving. Matt 10:23 is difficult but there is a clue. Jesus is talking to the apostles about coming persecutions (New Am. Bible), and was speaking futuristically, wthether inmediate future or distant and this seems to be the later because He mentions His 2nd coming. In the Rev. to John, if looked at eschatologically (I learned it as preterist, past tense AD 70) as future prophecy to be fulfilled yet, ch 7 talks about 144K jewish evangelists that take the gospel world wide; ch 11 talks about two witnessess (Elijah? Moses? Enoch?) that take the gospel to Israel; ch 14:6 is an angel “with evelasting good news to announce to those who dwell on the earth…” The Rev. describes the judgements on the unbelievers, their defeat by Christ at Armagedom and the preservation of the faithful. Acts ch 8:1 talks about the coming persecutions of the Jerusalem church right after the stoning to death of Steven,during apostolic times but Matt ch 24 which is eschatological and references Israel seems to have a double prophetic meaning, one in the inmediate future (AD 70) and a distant fulfillment in a date yet to come, (just like the Inmmanuel prophecy of Isaiah and Matt. with an inmediate and a later fulfillment). Certainly Matt 24:14 reiterates the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom and this is followed by the events of the great tribulation v.15-23 when severe persecution will demand to run for your life. The son of Man will return before this remnant of Israel exhausts the towns of Israel and this may be the meaning of Matt 10:23.

 

[Angelos]

I believe Christ emphasized that His return would not be soon:

Luke 21:8-11
Take heed you be not seduced: for many will come in my name, saying: I am he and the time is at hand. Go ye not therefore after them. And when you shall hear of wars and seditions, be not terrified. These things must first come to pass: but the end is not yet presently. Then he said to them: Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there shall be great earthquakes in divers places and pestilences and famines and terrors from heaven: and there shall be great signs.

Mark 13:8
For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places and famines. These things are the beginning of sorrows.

 

[LilyM]

KC, with all respect for your views, it is NOT the job of moderators to provide definitive answers, from a trained apologetics viewpoint, to questions that are posed in the public fora. That purpose is what the AAA (“Ask an Apologist”) section exists for. If you want a trained apologist to give you a definitive answer to your question, pose it there.

I’ve been a CAF member for 2 and a half years now and have never seen happen what you suggest should happen - that a trained apologist butts into a debate on the public fora, provides a pat answer and ends the discussion. They DO close threads that are degenerating into uncivility or other breaches of the forums rules, but that’s it. I honestly can’t see why you should expect anything other to happen in these public fora.

The job of a moderator here, as opposed to AAA, is simply to moderate, and not to provide official apologetic answers. Moderation means simply that they see to it that forum rules are obeyed within the debates and posts that take place, and if I may stick up for them they do a darn good, and usually quick and thorough job of it, even when there are few of them around.

There are features like ‘report a post’ that, if you use them, make their job much easier and usually get quick results.

I don’t know that all the moderators ARE, and they certainly don’t need to be, trained apologists to moderate the public fora, although those working in AAA certainly are trained apologists, of course.

 

[Michael_Francis]

A SEPARATE NOTE: I have been “away” from the forums for some time. When I used to post, I noticed that each of them showed a listing of moderators at the bottom of the forum listings. I now wonder if any of the C.A. apologists still monitor the forums. As we can see from this particular exchange (above), I think that is very important in order for Catholic Answers to remain true to the nature of its mission - to inform the laity of the CHURCH’S responses to inquiries. However, I have been notified that the apologists are apparently also inundated now with questions from “snail mail” and by FAX. Not only that, some are even attempting to answer questions on and for EWTN as well.

In short, while all here are trying to better understand our faith and where the Church stands on particular matters, if there are no longer any moderators guiding these forums, it is now a matter of “the blind leading the blind”. Although the Holy Spirit may, of course, intervene, I think that we need guidance by someone who can speak authoritatively for the Church on these boards. Otherwise, there is a distinct danger that we may lead each other even further astray.

If a moderator (working for Catholic Answers in San Diego, that is) sees this message, I would like to hear what assurance Catholic Answers can offer us today that we ARE still being guided by trained apologists and not simply left to our own guesses and confusion.

KC, with all respect for your views, it is NOT the job of moderators to provide definitive answers, from a trained apologetics viewpoint, to questions that are posed in the public fora. That purpose is what the AAA (“Ask an Apologist”) section exists for. If you want a trained apologist to give you a definitive answer to your question, pose it there.

I’ve been a CAF member for 2 and a half years now and have never seen happen what you suggest should happen - that a trained apologist butts into a debate on the public fora, provides a pat answer and ends the discussion. They DO close threads that are degenerating into incivility or other breaches of the forums rules, but that’s it. I honestly can’t see why you should expect anything other to happen in these public fora.

The job of a moderator here, as opposed to AAA, is simply to moderate, and not to provide official apologetic answers. Moderation means simply that they see to it that forum rules are obeyed within the debates and posts that take place, and if I may stick up for them they do a darn good, and usually quick and thorough job of it, even when there are few of them around.

There are features like ‘report a post’ that, if you use them, make their job much easier and usually get quick results.

I don’t know that all the moderators ARE, and they certainly don’t need to be, trained apologists to moderate the public fora, although those working in AAA certainly are trained apologists, of course.

Moderators are limited to overseeing their particular forums only. For a response to your situation/question may I suggest the following options:

Go to the link provided below and after reading the information there, submit a question to one of the apologists:

AAA Rules, Procedures, Tips, Options
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4

or using the link below, personally contact Catholic Answers Offices

CONTACT US
catholic.com/home/contact.asp

With every best wish for special blessings,
Michael Francis
Sacred Scripture Moderator

 

[tito]

Found LilyM response about the rules of how to participate in the fora very helpful, particularly that as a new member am trying to learn my way around it and certainly do not wish to twist the rules of the game. As pointed out to KC, questions that require an apologist ought to be posted in their forum. However, this being the forum on sacred scriptures-apologia, I keep in mind two things: first is that no one person can know the whole bible and even theologians are lifetime students and second that this is about biblical answers, not integrated church doctrine. How to reconcile scripture to the catechism can be assisted by the moderator, apologists or we ourselves can look it up. Commenting on posted questions is a responsibility, requires thoughtful research and reasoning so that answers not mislead someone down the wrong path. Biblical questions demand biblical answers and searching the scriptures is a lot of fun. Arm youself with a good bible, a solid commentary, a concordance, biblical dictionary,and perhaps a lexicon and with a little knowledge you will be rewarded by God with understanding of his word. And if you do this within the context of a church bible study God will lead you along and will be amazed of the progress you are making. You see, I can not see how in a churh of over 1500 people our bible study (just ended) only had 13 members in it. Like to figure out how to draw more people to the truth of God’s word but the attraction of wordly things is stronger. Finally I am open to any further clarification on the purpose and rules of the fora that those in charge may wish to point out.