Foundations of the Church

[mackbrislawn]

Hello

Suppose one accepts a few basic truths about Jesus… that he was a real person, he died, was raised again… Is this enough to lead a person to believe that the RCC is God’s instrument for communicating truth to humans?

To put it another way, or perhaps a similar question, how strong is the connection between accepting the above few truths about Jesus, and believing that he wanted to establish a particular group, or church… the conversion stories that I’ve read usually have the person saying that they felt drawn to the RCC… suppose that drawing isn’t there?

Peace,
Dan

Of course, the only reason we know the basic truths about Jesus is because the Church has taught them down through the ages. In practice, we don’t begin with Jesus, but with the Church, which then teaches us about Jesus. We wouldn’t have knowledge of Jesus to begin with without the Church.

There are no basic truths to begin with that haven’t already been given by the Church. So, if the Church isn’t God’s instrument for communicating truth, then we don’t know what truth is at all.

 

[Dan_471]

To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.[St Padre Pio]

Here’s a thought on the Pio quote…

I think an insult to Divinity is to think that God can be easily insulted… that His ego is soft or something… of course, since God can’t be easily insulted, it isn’t really an insult to think that He is easily insulted after all… kind of recursive…

 

[steve_b]

Ok, good… I’m glad you don’t think Paul was a deceiver… I don’t think he was either… at least I think he told things as he honestly believed they were…

which leaves us with two basic possibilities, I think…
when Paul says Peter was ‘clearly’ wrong, one possibility is that Paul is right about that, and Peter actually was wrong, which lends support to what I talked about earlier, Paul presenting Peter more as part of the problem than part of the solution… the second possibility is that Paul just really misunderstands the whole situation… which then brings up the question of what else Paul just really misunderstands… and we have an easy solution to the Paul/James controversy ( or Paul/Anyone)… Paul just maybe really misunderstood any given situation…

Keep in mind Paul rebukes Peter’s behavior, not Peter’s doctrine. Jerome in his discussion with Augustine (link was provided), implies the question, why did Peter do what he did? The answer is, so not to lose the people he was working with because they were fragile in their new faith. (paraphrased)

So Jerome asks (as an interlocutor) why did you Paul,

• take your disciple Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, have Timothy a gentile, circumcised. [Acts 16:1-3]
• Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 shave your head, purify yourself and make sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which you previously said is no longer effecting you

Let’s face it, there’s a big difference between Peter withdrawing from eating with someone, and Paul circumcizing his disciple (a gentile not a Jew) on account of of the Jews Paul was trying to evangelize in the region, and performing acts of the Mosaic law for appearance sake, which he says aren’t binding on him anymore.

Bottomline, Peter’s action that drew rebuke from Paul, was tame compared to Paul’s actions.

And Paul writes

1 Cor 9:20
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

So how do we conclude this?

could one say

• Paul learned a valuable lesson from Peter about effective evangelization practices and he became more flexible in certain disciplines?.
• As long as one doesn’t compromise doctrine, there’s flexibility of behavior with people you’re working with, so not to lose them?

Maybe you’re asking, where/when does one draw the line on compromise and flexibility?

 

[steve_b]

Here’s a thought on the Pio quote…

I think an insult to Divinity is to think that God can be easily insulted… that His ego is soft or something… of course, since God can’t be easily insulted, it isn’t really an insult to think that He is easily insulted after all… kind of recursive…

I think the spirit behind Pio’s use of doubt and insult, in that phrase is

Doubt in God, is like one saying to God, I will not believe . That’s in effect, one’s own personal insult to the Divinity. It’s like the episode in [Jn 6:66]. They would not believe and walked away. And what did Jesus do? He didn’t go after them. He let them go. Instead He turned and asked His apostles are you going to leave me to? IOW do you believe or not? He wasn’t going to leave that moment alone. He wanted an answer from His apostles. And He received the right answer from them.

 

[Dan_471]

Originally Posted by Dan_471
Yes, tho I’m not sure how it relates to why James would send newb Christians into a dangerous environment…

wait, James is sending the judaizers here? People that teach something different than other apostles? then I guess we have an example of different apostles teaching different things… imo…

When it says they (Judaizers) who came from James, that doesn’t mean to me, James sent them. It merely suggest to me, another way of saying, they were followers of James.

They’re not there on James’ advice? then I think an easy solution would have been for Peter to simply say, ‘you folks go back to Judea and ask James if you’re supposed to be here… and while you’re at it, here, take this letter from me to James helping to clear up this whole situation…’ then nobody gets hurt, there’s no cunfusion…

also, then are you into the ‘James was a Judiazer’ thinking? 'cuz then we would have an example of an Apostle being wrong about a key point of the Gospel… then again we could solve any Paul/James controversy just by saying that James didn’t really understand what was going on… also, James or any other Apostle could’ve been wrong about Peter being head of the Church…

Quote: Originally Posted by D
well, it doesn’t talk about debate taking place after Peter, but it does say “Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders…”

Peter spoke last ending the discussion. Peter and Barnabas added nothing to what Peter said.

we don’t know that the discussion ended there… that’s one possible reading… to me, the more natural reading is that the discussion continues until they decide to write the letter…

also, if Peter has the ability to speak and thus ending discussion, why doesn’t he do that in Galatia… or Antioch… or wherever they are when Paul confronts him? I think that would have been a much better way to handle it…

Quote:
Possibly… James is still going to speak…

I see that he repeats the thrust of Peters ideas, tho James adds “It is my judgment,”

James as bishop of Jerusalem confirmed what Peter said.

a possible reading, sure…

Quote: Originally Posted by D
interesting, yes? James says the judgement is his…

" therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.j 21For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”

it’s Jameses idea to send the letter… and he talks about adding the four laws that the Gentiles are supposed to keep…

One could just as easily ask, why didn’t James do this on his own, in the first place?

because James can’t control Paul and those preaching out in Gentile-land… it’s possible too, that James doesn’t really want the Council, but goes along and makes the best of it anyway…

Why have a council?

perhaps to rein in Paul… or from Paul’s point of view, to stop the wrong teaching from James…

Afterall, the Judaizers who were causing the problems came from James followers.

how closely were they following James?

What we’re seeing here is levels of Church leadership, and levels of authority.

well, that’s one way to look at it, yes…

Peter doesn’t diminish the authority of James, but he does outrank him. And we see that in the exchange.

certainly one can see that there, yes…

I think that one can certtainly see those things, yes… and I’m not saying they have to be wrong… just that to me, a more natural, easier reading is that there were dissentions among Christians, different people see things different ways… Paul and James are not on the same page, Peter is ‘caught’ in the middle… one of the things people might have been differing over back then was Peter’s role in the church… Paul doesn’t really seem to be thinking of him in ‘leader of the church’ terms…

Originally Posted by D
OK, I don’t understand how what you wrote above relates to why James would send newb Christians into a dangerous environment… personally, I don’t think he did, I think these are strong, seasoned Christians… because that makes more sense to me… and fits with James being a wise leader…

Who did James send?

well, my feeling was that he sent strong, seasoned Christians… and Peter doesn’t need to baby them…

 

[Dan_471]

To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.[St Padre Pio]

here’s a positive quote: ‘how lovely on the mountains are the feet of them that bring good news’ Isaiah

 

[steve_b]

here’s a positive quote: ‘how lovely on the mountains are the feet of them that bring good news’ Isaiah

That’s good too. Both speak of truth. So I think both are a positive message.:twocents:

 

[steve_b]

They’re not there on James’ advice? then I think an easy solution would have been for Peter to simply say, ‘you folks go back to Judea and ask James if you’re supposed to be here… and while you’re at it, here, take this letter from me to James helping to clear up this whole situation…’ then nobody gets hurt, there’s no cunfusion…

The advantage of a council, many ears, who need to hear a message, hear the message at all at once. Given the times, and difficulties in getting messages circulated far and wide, this is a very efficient way to make sure everyone at once is on the same page before they go out and teach.
D:

also, then are you into the ‘James was a Judiazer’ thinking?

No. Judaizers were Jewish converts who hadn’t fully divested themselves of “works of the law”. These particular Judaizers in question, happen to come from James diocese. But all the apostles had judaizers in their flocks.
D:

'cuz then we would have an example of an Apostle being wrong about a key point of the Gospel… then again we could solve any Paul/James controversy just by saying that James didn’t really understand what was going on… also, James or any other Apostle could’ve been wrong about Peter being head of the Church…

The good thing is, (if problems arise) such as when Jesus told the apostles, when they got in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM [Lk 22:24…], that it was Peter that Jesus was praying for specifically, because Satan asked and was granted to sift THEM like wheat. That’s who got them in the argument in the 1st place. But it was going to be Peter who would be the one to confirm and strengthen THEM…through the sifting. And we know, Satan doesn’t quit. He keeps sifting.

Bottom line, we see Peter, in council, after much debate, decide the issue, ending further discussion. Just as Jesus prayed for.
D:

we don’t know that the discussion ended there… that’s one possible reading… to me, the more natural reading is that the discussion continues until they decide to write the letter.…

Since apostolic Tradition is both oral & written, and both are authoritative, [2 Thes 2:15…] we don’t see the idea that you propose in either oral or written form
D:

also, if Peter has the ability to speak and thus ending discussion, why doesn’t he do that in Galatia… or Antioch… or wherever they are when Paul confronts him? I think that would have been a much better way to handle it…

Haren’t we covered this one before?

 

[Dan_471]

Originally Posted by D well, based on the Gospels… are we treating the Gospels here as historical documents, or objects of faith?

Why not both?

well, because historical documents could be true or false, and objects of faith are assumed to be true…

Quote: Originally Posted by D
I think it’s possible, given how Paul presents Peter in Gal 1 and 2, that Peter wasn’t really in the role of complete leader of the church

Jesus words made Peter the highest leader.

well, if Jesus actually said that, yes…

That said, it doesn’t mean the others weren’t leaders as well. Just that Peter by having received the keys of the kingdom of God, and being servant of the servants, makes him the greatest among the other leaders.

ok, that follows, again if Jesus actaully gave him the keys…

Quote: Originally Posted by D well, the word Jesus uses, I think, is the same as the OT uses for ‘congregation’… one issue I see is whether Jesus means a tightly knit group or a loose association…

Mt 18:17 suggest a tight group not a loose association.

right, so a lot seems to rest on ‘Matthew’s’ rememberance of things…

Quote: Originally Posted by D
I didn’t know it was mentioned only in Matt of all the Gospels… now, imo, that does actually weaken the case…

only if one is looking for a reason not to believe

well, imo it weakens the case whether one is looking for reasons not to believe or looking to see how strong the case is to believe…

Quote: Originally Posted by D

well, and I’m not sure of the stats on this, but I think many times it’s mentioned plural, ‘churches’… ‘John, to the seven churches that are in Asia’…

The one Church in many locations (churches), is still one Church. We have writers closest to the apostles in time, writing about this and how they understood it.

right, and I agree that church-churches is not a big deal… at the same time, tho, if an Apostle wasn’t thinking in terms of a single church, then they would be using ‘churches’ a lot…

For example,
Irenaeus [Bk 3 Ch 3 v 2…]
If you’re interested, I’ll add a link

well, Irenaeus is a while removed from Jesus, I think… yes, still closer than we are today… say, here’s a question from out in left field… does Irenaeus say who’s pope in his day?

Quote: Originally Posted by D
well, if we’re going to say that the Holy Spirit inspired this one set of Scriptures, then we could actually save time by just saying that the Spirit ordained that the RCC is the One Church… that closes the case very easily…

Actually, the case is closed Dan.

well, the ‘case’ as in an internet forum… as in reasonable, informed people could be expected to take different sides, it looks to me very open…

One would have to propose a competing set of scriptures with different results, in order to offer a greater-than-or-equal-to alternative understanding to what’s already been there for the last 2000 years. It’s not there

well, ok, but now we’re back to assuming that all the Scriptures are reliable and Spirit-ordained…the original post of this thread, if I remember right, was about the connection between Jesus and the RCC, not really so much about the link between the Scriptures and the Church…
so, how strong is the connection between the Scriptures and the RCC? I suppose a lot would depend firstly on which canon of Scripture one used, and how one read them… seeing how Jesus read the Torah, if one used the same approach to the NT, one could find a lot of leeway, imo… why? because the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life…

Quote: Originally Posted by D
or we could say that the Spirit inspired the Book of Mormon, or that It leads the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society… this also closes the case in different directions…

We know who started those groups and when they were started. That disqualifies them both.

ok, I’m not following how knowing when a group is started disqualifies it from being led by the Spirit… we know when the Church was started? yes?
The Mormons say the LDS church was started by Jesus, and the JW’s say something similar, I think…

 

[Dan_471]

Quote: Originally Posted by D
possibly… oddly, some of the epistles predate (I hear) the writing of the Gospels… also, I think it’s interesting that Paul, writing the earliest epistles (I hear) mentions virtually nothing of Jesus’ teachings… Paul likes the idea that Jesus, the Messiah, came, lived, and died and rose again… that seems to be what Paul knows about…

1. By definition, All scripture is inspired by God.[2 Tim 3:16] which means the following took place in all of Paul’s writings [Jn 16:13-15] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 2. Therefore, what Paul wrote, because it’s considered scripture, taught what Jesus wanted taught.

kind of an odd situation with 1Tim, there… does it refer to itself? how would one know which writings are Scripture?.. odd thing (at least it seems odd to me) that if Paul wrote that, there wasn’t really a canon in place for either the OT or NT (so I’ve heard)…
anyways, Paul makes few references to what Jesus taught…

Quote: Originally Posted by D
ah, but now we’re involved in kind of a circular situation, here Steve, I think… why would we think that Jesus said that? because the Spirit reminded the Gospel writers what He said… why would we think that? because it says in John that He did… why would we think that’s accurate? because Jesus said the Spirit would remind the writers…

Are you seeing this as circular?

yes

In this case, since this is a religious issue, and a qualified recognizable authority to settle a religious issue is scripture,

well, I think that’s where the circularity sneaked in on ya, there… which Scriptures (that is, which writings are Scripture), and are they reliable… if one appeals to the Scriptures to show that the Scriptures are reliable, that becomes circular, imo…

then to quote scripture to settle a matter, isn’t by definition, appealing to a circular reasoning.

if the matter is the reliability of the Scriptures, or the authority of the Church that chose those Scriptures, then yes, I think it is circular…

Authority ends an issue, it doesn’t bend it around to make a circle.

right, it’s just if one uses that authority to establish the authority itself…

To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.

well, Padre, you and I see things differently… blessings on the Pio-man

 

[steve_b]

well, because historical documents could be true or false, and objects of faith are assumed to be true…

Since we’re talking about scripture, as “historical documents”, in order to be an article of faith the Church would have had to rule on it. Therefore, once something is made an article of faith, one doesn’t have to worry about falsehoods.
D:

well, if Jesus actually said that, yes…

I’m more confident of Jesus saying that, than I am of you being who you say you are. Does that make sense? The Church was an eye witness. You and I are talking over the internet. You don’t know me and I don’t know you.
D:

ok, that follows, again if Jesus actaully gave him the keys…

Again, I’m confident that happened, because I trust the source who was there.
D:

right, so a lot seems to rest on ‘Matthew’s’ rememberance of things…

If Matthew’s remembrence was not correct, we’d see immediate push back from his contemporaries. Just like we see ECF’s pushing back against those who hold wrong beliefs
D:

well, imo it weakens the case whether one is looking for reasons not to believe or looking to see how strong the case is to believe…

Matthew alone mentioning keys going to Peter doesn’t weaken the case. The Church has lived that truth for 2000 years.
D:

right, and I agree that church-churches is not a big deal… at the same time, tho, if an Apostle wasn’t thinking in terms of a single church, then they would be using ‘churches’ a lot…

Jesus taught they were to be one as He and His Father are one. There’s zero room for division there. Jesus said He would build His Church. Therefore His Church is one.
D:

well, Irenaeus is a while removed from Jesus, I think… yes, still closer than we are today… say, here’s a question from out in left field… does Irenaeus say who’s pope in his day?

Yes of course. [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)
That’s from Bk 3 Ch 3. Look at Vs 3. See the 12 bishops of Rome from Peter and Paul he names? The last name Irenaeus mentions is the pope of his day Eleutherius.
As an aside, have you seen the movie Gladiator? In the beginning there’s a prologue, it says it’s around the year ~180 as I recall. It gives one an idea how those times looked. If you see the movie, remember to read that in the opening scene
D:

well, the ‘case’ as in an internet forum… as in reasonable, informed people could be expected to take different sides, it looks to me very open…

well, ok, but now we’re back to assuming that all the Scriptures are reliable and Spirit-ordained…the original post of this thread, if I remember right, was about the connection between Jesus and the RCC, not really so much about the link between the Scriptures and the Church…
so, how strong is the connection between the Scriptures and the RCC? I suppose a lot would depend firstly on which canon of Scripture one used, and how one read them… seeing how Jesus read the Torah, if one used the same approach to the NT, one could find a lot of leeway, imo… why? because the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life…

The scriptures were written in, by, and for the Catholic Church. The writters, Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude are all in the Church they write to and for. Luke wrote Acts. Her is what he said

• Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all κατά kataὅ**λοςholos* Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" iow the Church is the ****Kataholos Church = Catholic Church ****The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. *http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

Ignatius, Bp of Antioch, ordained by apostles ~69 a.d. martyred ~107 a.d. He was a disciple of St John. Ignatius called the Church the Catholic Church. Letter to the Church @ Smyrna

Bp Polycarp, also a disciple of St John called the Church the Catholic Church " Martyrdom of Polycarp"

Bp Irenaeus of Lyons, also called the Church the Catholic Church, “Against Heresies”

etc etc etc
D:

ok, I’m not following how knowing when a group is started disqualifies it from being led by the Spirit… we know when the Church was started? yes?
The Mormons say the LDS church was started by Jesus, and the JW’s say something similar, I think…

The Spirit isn’t the author of all this division. Anybody can look up who started each Protestant group and when it started. They are all started by men who divided from somebody else. They can’t begin to justify Jesus starting THEM.

 

[steve_b]

kind of an odd situation with 1Tim, there… does it refer to itself? how would one know which writings are Scripture?.. odd thing (at least it seems odd to me) that if Paul wrote that, there wasn’t really a canon in place for either the OT or NT (so I’ve heard)…
anyways, Paul makes few references to what Jesus taught…

True, there was no NT canon at the time the NT was being written. That didn’t come till much later.

However, examining the NT books written in Greek with the OT Septuigint also written in Greek and known as (LXX), we see how many times the LXX is referenced in the NT. The Septuagint had the same number of books in it from ~180 a.d. Since both testaments were written in Greek, here are the OT references in the NT cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

Re: Paul not referencing what Jesus taught, here’s something to consider. The purpose of Jesus sending the HS to inspire the apostles, was to cause them to remember all that Jesus taught.

Jn 14:
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Jn 16:
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Therefore: Since Paul is writing under the inspiration of the HS, Paul taught what Jesus taught or wanted Paul to teach.
D:

well, I think that’s where the circularity sneaked in on ya, there… which Scriptures (that is, which writings are Scripture), and are they reliable… if one appeals to the Scriptures to show that the Scriptures are reliable, that becomes circular, imo…

I never said they authenticate themselves.
D:

if the matter is the reliability of the Scriptures, or the authority of the Church that chose those Scriptures, then yes, I think it is circular…

scripture can’t identify itself, that’s true. It’s not true that the the Church who wrote the scriptures can’t identify her own writings as scripture.

Peter, Paul, James, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jude, are all in the Church they write to and for…true? The Church they are in will make the decision on which works are scripture.

 

[Dan_471]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post

no, I mean the tradition of which James wrote the Book of James… like I think, tho I could be wrong about this, that the first written mention we have of Matthew being the author of the book we call Matthew is Eusebius, in the 300’s…

Irenaeus in ~180 a.d. wrote about 4 Gospels rc.net/wcc/readings/father10.htm
the source is Bk 3 Ch 11 newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

ok… then my question about the tradition of which James wrote the Book of James… the first written mention of that…

Quote:
Originally Posted by D

well, two things that come up with Akin’s article… I think I might have mentioned this before… the first is that Akin assumes that all of the books in the Bible are part of a single, unified whole and share a single doctrinal approach… a fine view, but not one I currently share…

One should have evidence for their opinion…true? Otherwise there’s no use believing in something that isn’t true.

right… I’m not quite following you here… are you asking for my evidence that the Bible isn’t a single unified whole, or saying that Aking has good evidence for his views about Abraham and justification? (or something else?)

let’s see if we can unravel this a bit… I think I had said that James (the book) and Paul in Romans look to me like they have different views on Abraham’s state prior to circumcision… this led to the question of what Abraham’s state was in Romans 4 (prior to circumcxion)… Akin’s answer, if I understand it right, is to compare what Paul says with other parts of the Bible… I think this is based on the view that the Bible has a single author (God), or single inspirer… so all of the parts fit together… and one can’t say that one fully understands what’s going on in one part unless one can match it up with the other parts… so it makes sense to look to Hebrews to see what it says about justification, to then help one understand Romans…it’s a good view, and a very common one, yes…
now, for me, I’ve found a different approach works well… I like to see what each author is saying, and then compare authors to see how they match up… so, I don’t take the ‘interpret one passage of the Bible in light of another’ approach…
to me, it looks like Paul is saying something different about Abraham’s justification than James is… so, if you are interested, we can take a look at the issue ‘What does Paul say about Abraham’s state in Romans 4?’

As an aside, a unified view doesn’t mean every person will persevere in unity.

very true

That doesn’t invalidate the unified view, it only shows the weakness of human nature.

right

Originally Posted by D
the other issue is that Akin isn’t here for me to talk to and interact with… so if you would like to narrow down what he says Paul says (just Paul, not the other Bible writers) about Abraham, I think that would be cool… a key issue, I think, is ‘are Abraham’s sins forgiven before he is circumsized’?

Heaven was closed. No one could have their sins forgiven in the OT using OT dynamics.

hmmm… so when Paul writes ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’, how do you understand that? it sounds to me like his sins were forgiven…

or we could use the word ‘iniquities’… the word the NAB uses… and ‘sins not being recorded’… it looks to me that Paul says Abraham is in this state prior to being circumsized… how does it look to you?

If they could, there would have been no need for a future messiah.

well, and a common answer is that God forgave iniquities in the past based on the future sacrifice of Jesus… so, the word ‘credit’ is apt, kind of like a credit card… forgive now, sacrifice to come… I don’t know if that’s what Paul is thinking here or not… another view is that time only applies to objects that have physical dimensions (time and distance being related), since God doesn’t have those dimensions, He exists outside of time, so past, present, and future all ‘happen’ at once for Him…

To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.[St Padre Pio]

Blessings on the Pio-man.

 

[steve_b]

let’s see if we can unravel this a bit… I think I had said that James (the book) and Paul in Romans look to me like they have different views on Abraham’s state prior to circumcision… this led to the question of what Abraham’s state was in Romans 4 (prior to circumcxion)… Akin’s answer, if I understand it right, is to compare what Paul says with other parts of the Bible… I think this is based on the view that the Bible has a single author (God), or single inspirer… so all of the parts fit together… and one can’t say that one fully understands what’s going on in one part unless one can match it up with the other parts… so it makes sense to look to Hebrews to see what it says about justification, to then help one understand Romans…it’s a good view, and a very common one, yes…

now, for me, I’ve found a different approach works well… I like to see what each author is saying, and then compare authors to see how they match up… so,* I don’t take the ‘interpret one passage of the Bible in light of another’ approach*…
to me, it looks like Paul is saying something different about Abraham’s justification than James is… so, if you are interested, we can take a look at the issue ‘What does Paul say about Abraham’s state in Romans 4?’

Both speak of faith, but not faith “alone”. And Paul and James don’t contradict each other.

When Paul says Abraham “believed”, was it an intellectual belief and nothing was done by Abraham after that? No.
D:

hmmm… so when Paul writes ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’, how do you understand that? it sounds to me like his sins were forgiven…

Let’s use an example

Jesus tells the following story about Lazarus and the rich man. ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp

Abraham’s bosom ≠ heaven. It’s a place of comfort but it’s not heaven. If sins in the OT could be forgiven without a redeemer and messiah, why did we need Jesus as redeemer or messiah? If Abraham was in heaven, that would mean one could make it to heaven using an OT dynamic. That would contradict the NT.
D:

or we could use the word ‘iniquities’… the word the NAB uses… and ‘sins not being recorded’… it looks to me that Paul says Abraham is in this state prior to being circumsized… how does it look to you?

Paul says, circumcision doesn’t really count. It’s faith, but not faith alone

Romans 4:16 Romans 9:8 Romans 11:1 1Corinthians 7:19
Galatians 5:6

 

[Dan_471]

Originally Posted by Dan_471
How would you look at this then… the connection between Jesus and Peter… is it really important?

Given what Jesus does for Peter, it’s instructive then that Jesus says where that comes from.
Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Jn 6:
38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
Jn 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."
Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."
Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
Therefore, it’s clear, Peter is the Father’s choice to be the physical leader of the apostles ergo the Church.

if Jesus said those things… yes, sure… and if He said the part in Matthew 16… yes, possibly… here’s an idea that might move our discussion forward… the longer ending of Mark… where Jesus is quoted as saying “these signs will follow those who believe …” did Jesus say that?

And because the Church won’t end, Peter will have successors. So yes, THAT’s an important connection.

well, then, it makes sense to pursue the reliability of those quotes, I think…

A connection that no human opposition, or discord between those who would seek rivalry and division over time, from the one Church, will overcome.

 

[Dan_471]

To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.[St Padre Pio]

How about investigating the reliability of claims made about Jesus… is that a good idea? I think it is…

 

[Dan_471]

Here is a person once in your position of believing that he wanted to establish a particular group, or church.

“I would not believe the Gospels if it were not for the Church.” Augustine.

I guess that resolved any doubts for him.

yes, and I can see that process… first decide to believe in the Church… then you can use the Church to establish the Gospels…
starts, then, with choosing to believe in the Church…
say, here’s an issue to ponder, then… which group of believers gets to choose the Gospels?

 

[steve_b]

How about investigating the reliability of claims made about Jesus… is that a good idea? I think it is…

What claim(s) do you challenge?

 

[Dan_471]

Jesus convicted an individual

well, let’s see… Luke has Jesus responding to ‘him’, singular, but then uses plurals, ‘each one of you’… and in the end, the ‘crowd’, I think here the common people, rejoices, while Jesus’ ‘adversaries’, I think the synagogue official and those present he represents, are humiliated…l think this points to Jesus rebutting the synagogue leader as a representative of the group… and it makes sense, he became a leader of the synagogue by learning the traditions, demonstrating leadership skills, etc…

, who assumed he was speaking for God and Judaism,

yes, I think that’s reasonable… a leader of a synagogue should have some ability to speak for the institution (Judaism), and I think it was assumed at that time that Judaism spoke for God… so I think that the people gathered there, the crowd and the group looking toward the leader, thought that the leader represented God and Judaism, to some degree, yes…

I’m working from memory here, but when Jesus says (is it in Matthew?) to pay attention to the scribes and Pharasees because they sit in the seat of Moses… where would the people hear the scribes? I’m thinking it would be in places like the local synagogue… where they represent the institution…

of being a hypocrite instead.

yes… Luke has plural… “hypocrites”…

If the man had taken the institutions’ teachings to heart, would have he been able to do that?

I think so… I don’t know what the common thinking was in Judaism about the Sabbath… (there were probably different camps…) but in the main, they probably went with the general Torah idea of not traveling on the Sabbath (‘not leaving your place’)… of course, going to the synagogue to attend worship/teaching services was ok… but the leader probably didn’t want throngs of people traveling on the Sabbath just to get healed, when there were six other great days to come…

Jesus didn’t come to destroy the institution, or to abolish the Law. He came to witness to the truth behind them,

yes… the truth behind them… and laying down the pattern that if the institution (it’s representitives) are teaching something clearly against God’s ways, it’s ok to rebut them… Jesus goes so far as to humiliate them… I’m not sure if I agree with that… perhaps in some times and places…

to teach us what is truly of value, and this is a process of continuing discovery for us all. Getting off of “institution worship” is often part of that process and whole time periods and groups of people can be and have been enmeshed in that very behavior and weighed down by it.

ok. getting off of the institution worship… does one still have to do what the institution teaches? I’m thinking Jesus here is saying no…

But that’s still no reason to shoot the messenger-the message is too valuable.

right… so we can up-play the message… in this case that Jesus rose from the dead and we should love God and love our neighbor…(simplified version there)… and down-play the messenger, in this case the RCC… are we thinking the same thing here? possibly…

 

[fhansen]

well, let’s see… Luke has Jesus responding to ‘him’, singular, but then uses plurals, ‘each one of you’… and in the end, the ‘crowd’, I think here the common people, rejoices, while Jesus’ ‘adversaries’, I think the synagogue official and those present he represents, are humiliated…l think this points to Jesus rebutting the synagogue leader as a representative of the group… and it makes sense, he became a leader of the synagogue by learning the traditions, demonstrating leadership skills, etc…

yes, I think that’s reasonable… a leader of a synagogue should have some ability to speak for the institution (Judaism), and I think it was assumed at that time that Judaism spoke for God… so I think that the people gathered there, the crowd and the group looking toward the leader, thought that the leader represented God and Judaism, to some degree, yes…

I’m working from memory here, but when Jesus says (is it in Matthew?) to pay attention to the scribes and Pharasees because they sit in the seat of Moses… where would the people hear the scribes? I’m thinking it would be in places like the local synagogue… where they represent the institution…

yes… Luke has plural… “hypocrites”…

I think so… I don’t know what the common thinking was in Judaism about the Sabbath… (there were probably different camps…) but in the main, they probably went with the general Torah idea of not traveling on the Sabbath (‘not leaving your place’)… of course, going to the synagogue to attend worship/teaching services was ok… but the leader probably didn’t want throngs of people traveling on the Sabbath just to get healed, when there were six other great days to come…

yes… the truth behind them… and laying down the pattern that if the institution (it’s representitives) are teaching something clearly against God’s ways, it’s ok to rebut them… Jesus goes so far as to humiliate them… I’m not sure if I agree with that… perhaps in some times and places…

ok. getting off of the institution worship… does one still have to do what the institution teaches? I’m thinking Jesus here is saying no…

right… so we can up-play the message… in this case that Jesus rose from the dead and we should love God and love our neighbor…(simplified version there)… and down-play the messenger, in this case the RCC… are we thinking the same thing here? possibly…

I haven’t followed this thread lately and I’m really not sure if you like either the message or the messenger. So I’ll start by laying out the basic message first. We all decide for ourselves what we’ll believe to be true -and of value.

Humans have choices. We can opt to love very well in this life, or opt to hate, or opt to live somewhere in between these extremes. We’re all tempted to let selfishness, pride, greed, lust, etc, to be our guiding lights, or, alternatively, to let higher and nobler values reign.

The CC claims to have received revelation regarding the nature of reality at its most basic level. And, at that level, the Church teaches that love and goodness reside, centered in a rational being who’s the source of all that we observe and experience in this life. And that this being has every right to expect and even require that love and goodness and order should continue to be the qualities that orient the universe.

Humans, again, are free to do as they please regardless of whether or not they have the right to do as they please. According to our faith humans chose first of all to simply do what they want regardless of the will of any superior being, as if, in fact, no such being, with any aforementioned requirements or demands, even exists. This disposition, this state of being, is what allows for moral evil to have its way in human affairs because humans who do as they please don’t necessarily do what’s right-***to the extent that they’re separated from this higher being. ***And this disposition is true for all of us, whether or not we’re part of a religious institution; it’s a fact of life that we all struggle with, because we all struggle with whether or not we even-in truth- prefer to heed the will of a higher being.

In any case the message, IMO, is correct, while the human beings who “possess” and deliver the message are in varying degrees of “correctness”. Some can be full-blown hypocrites (a very human tendency), while others have become quite good at cultivating the virtue of love, truly heeding the message as, for example, St Francis did in spite of the initial objections of church leaders, family, and others.

The point is that the message is beautiful regardless of the beauty of the messengers. But without them, and the “ark” they’ve carried down to us through the centuries, there would be much less light in this world now. Darkness will stay with us as well, for the time being, perpetrated by people both inside and outside religious bodies.