Faith

[Marcos_2]

I’m thinking if we may or mayn’t say: I have faith in Jesus.

In Leviathan (Thomas Hobbes’ book), in last paragraph of chapter 7, there is this part:

“So that it is evident, that whatsoever we believe, upon no other reason, than what is drawn from authority of men onely, and their writings; whether they be sent from God or not, is Faith in men onely.”

Until today, we have people transmiting Jesus’ messages. These people received from people before. These, from others before. The thing goes in this way until we arrive in time of apostles transmiting Jesus’ messages.

It means we, today, have access to Jesus’ teachings through the words of the new apostles and the testimony (in Bible) of the first apostles. But Word of God wasn’t told us directly by Jesus, but through people of our time and first apostles’ testimony (our access to Bible today). Therefore, we have, we deposit faith in words of men. If these men were/are speaking the truth (exactly what Jesus teached), we can’t be 100% assured: we just have faith they’re speaking true things.

Thus, I’m thinking the right is to say we have faith in men (first apostles’ testimony, and Tradition today); and we can’t say we have faith in Jesus, once he directly didn’t tell us anything, but people who He sent to evangelize is telling us anything.

Finally, what do you think: *might or mightn’t we say *****

Bye

 

[Nita]

I’m thinking if we may or mayn’t say: I have faith in Jesus.

In Leviathan (Thomas Hobbes’ book), in last paragraph of chapter 7, there is this part:

“So that it is evident, that whatsoever we believe, upon no other reason, than what is drawn from authority of men onely, and their writings; whether they be sent from God or not, is Faith in men onely.”

Until today, we have people transmiting Jesus’ messages. These people received from people before. These, from others before. The thing goes in this way until we arrive in time of apostles transmiting Jesus’ messages.

It means we, today, have access to Jesus’ teachings through the words of the new apostles and the testimony (in Bible) of the first apostles. But Word of God wasn’t told us directly by Jesus, but through people of our time and first apostles’ testimony (our access to Bible today). Therefore, we have, we deposit faith in words of men. If these men were/are speaking the truth (exactly what Jesus teached), we can’t be 100% assured: we just have faith they’re speaking true things.

Thus, I’m thinking the right is to say we have faith in men (first apostles’ testimony, and Tradition today); and we can’t say we have faith in Jesus, once he directly didn’t tell us anything, but people who He sent to evangelize is telling us anything.

Finally, what do you think: *might or mightn’t we say *****

Bye

I do not have faith in men; my faith is in God. The trust I have in Scripture is not a faith/trust in the human writers, but a faith in God who oversaw what they wrote and made sure it conveyed the truth He wanted conveyed. The same holds true for the Pope and Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is not the particular bishops, but God who ensures that nothing inaccurate will be proclaimed.

Heard an interesting story on EWTN (I think) one time. Can not remember who was relating it or what the name of the Pope was. (Old age is SO much fun ) Anyway, seems there was a Pope who had personally translated the Bible and was going to mandate it for Church use. It was, I guess, a terrible translation. Well, the papal bull was all set to be promulgated the next day - but during the night the pope died unexpectedly. No papal bull, and no new translation.
God is well able to ensure the accuracy of what His Church teaches. Trust Him.

Nita

 

[quasimodo]

marcos - suggestion - change your font, it hurts the eye

 

[Marcos_2]

Hi.
I’ll change my font

Nita,

“I do not have faith in men; my faith is in God”

For example, I believe (and probably you also) Jesus Christ can realize any miracle. It’s possible to happen a person to believe in His power, ask Him for something, and He realizes a miracle, for example. So, you’re believing, you’re having faith in Christ’s power to do something (a miracle, in this case). Thus, it is undeniable you have faith in Christ.

However, did we get faith in God alone, with any “help”? I don’t think so… (There are people who prefer not going to Church because “God is everywhere”, so there isn’t necessity to be in the church… that’s another theme in our days: each one creates its own god… but that’s not the point…). Continuing: some people (family, priests, Cathecism etc) teached us catholic doctrines, or rather, people transmit us teachings about our religion (for example, God is Love; God is merciful; the kind of life we must have to be with God and futurely receive Heaven… etc). And this way (through people, Church Tradition) we know who is God, Jesus…

So, I’m guessing we may say I have faith in Christ, in the sense we believe He ressurected, He still lives and He can be with us and do/make things for us. But this our faith in Jesus comes after our faith in men: apostles. Imagine:

You lived in a isolated community, in a society where anyone speaks about any god (diferently of old people in Antique…). Then you decide to travel. You’ll find people with originating culture from Europe. They will say to you: there is God; there was a man called Jesus, and He is God; there is an impeccable Church etc. You’re going to ask: where did you get all those information? They will answer: that’s the teaching which is being transmitting since the time of apostles. And we accept these teachings as being true. Then - if in future you’ll become a catholic person - or you like these ideas and accept it, or you’ll look for it origins, to check wether it’s really according to the messages in Jesus’ time etc. After, searching about it, you conclude people of Church are trustful, they don’t have interest to alter the content etc.

Therefore, in a first moment, you’re believing in what people in Church are telling (Saint Paul, for example, says he was inspired. But was he really? We believe he was. So, first you must have faith in Paul’s testimony, and after in Jesus); you are having faith firstly in men. After you agree with these teachings teached by men (priests, popes, or even simple catholics) and you are convinced Church’s teachings are all right, you put faith in Jesus. You firstly will be using as presupposition that men are telling truth, and after you’ll be believing, having faith Jesus (can act in our lives).

At last, it is seeming to me we firstly have faith in men (people in the Church), and after we have faith in Jesus (admiting His powers). My initial question seems to be answered: we may say we have faith in Jesus, but first having faith in men

Any commentary?

 

[Nita]

Marcos,
I think the difficulty is the definition we give to certain words, specifically: “believe”, “faith”, “trust”. They cannot always be used interchangeably. Eg. I “believe” what Matthew wrote, but I do not have “faith” in Matthew. Faith involves more than just believing. As James says in his epistle, even the demons believe (James 2:19).

Nita