How do you define "Know Jesus"

[kalt]

In another thread, people are talking about knowing Jesus.

How do you define “know Jesus”?

 

[happilycatholic]

I think you can “know” Jesus on different levels:

1.) Baptism
2.) Intimate “knowledge” of Jesus through the Eucharist.
3.) Trust: Total Surrender to His will
4.) Prayer

 

[chaunceygardner]

I think you can “know” Jesus on different levels:

1.) Baptism
2.) Intimate “knowledge” of Jesus through the Eucharist.
3.) Trust: Total Surrender to His will
4.) Prayer

I would agree with all four (perhaps expanding “baptism” to “sacraments”, but would add a fifth: Through His Word. For that is one way we know what His will is.

 

[4EverHis]

but how do we interpret His Word? for this we need the Church… or each person will have their own personal interpretation. (hence: no unity, many mistakes…)

 

[chaunceygardner]

but how do we interpret His Word? for this we need the Church… or each person will have their own personal interpretation. (hence: no unity, many mistakes…)

Of course His Word is open to interpretation. The history of Christianity and the current number of various faiths and denominations speaks to that. But that is not the question. Without His Word, without the New Testament in particular, we would not even be aware of Jesus or the other “ways” of knowing Him.

 

[regression]

Of course His Word is open to interpretation. The history of Christianity and the current number of various faiths and denominations speaks to that. But that is not the question. Without His Word, without the New Testament in particular, we would not even be aware of Jesus or the other “ways” of knowing Him.

We have the Church. If there was no bible, Jesus’s teachings would be made know to the work through his Church. The same way people who lived before the bible was compiled knew Jesus.

 

[happilycatholic]

Of course His Word is open to interpretation. The history of Christianity and the current number of various faiths and denominations speaks to that. But that is not the question. Without His Word, without the New Testament in particular, we would not even be aware of Jesus or the other “ways” of knowing Him.

Awe, I think we have to look really hard at this one. God is not limited to what is in Scripture. IMHO, God has made himself known through Jesus Christ and thereore “The Only Word” and nothing else need be said. The Scriptures are a continuance of what was already revealed through Tradition. It is documentation of God’s will, not the substance of it.

We shouldn’t limit God’s ability to make His presence and His Truth known to Scripture.

I fully understand that this is the conception today because the Scriptures are depended on in ways they were not in the time of Christ. But to say something somehow changed and now God’s only revelation to us is Scripture is falling a little short of giving God all the Glory.

We must be careful to Give God the glory and not Scripture. God can and most certainly did reveal Himself to us before and after the New Testament.

This is precisely the reason I did not mention Scripture in my testimony. I feel like knowing Christ is a divine revelation that must be felt and is not intellectual. That is why I listed every non-intellectual way I could think of to “know” Christ.

But, this is just my humble POV. I’m not minimalizing anyone else’s.

 

[chaunceygardner]

happilycatholic:
Awe, I think we have to look really hard at this one. God is not limited to what is in Scripture. IMHO, God has made himself known through Jesus Christ and thereore “The Only Word” and nothing else need be said. The Scriptures are a continuance of what was already revealed through Tradition. It is documentation of God’s will, not the substance of it.

We shouldn’t limit God’s ability to make His presence and His Truth known to Scripture.

I fully understand that this is the conception today because the Scriptures are depended on in ways they were not in the time of Christ. But to say something somehow changed and now God’s only revelation to us is Scripture is falling a little short of giving God all the Glory.

We must be careful to Give God the glory and not Scripture. God can and most certainly did reveal Himself to us before and after the New Testament.

This is precisely the reason I did not mention Scripture in my testimony. I feel like knowing Christ is a divine revelation that must be felt and is not intellectual. That is why I listed every non-intellectual way I could think of to “know” Christ.

But, this is just my humble POV. I’m not minimalizing anyone else’s.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, and for explaining your reason for not listing God’s Word as a way of knowing Christ. But I don’t think we are really that far apart. I must point out that you highlighted the key sentence in my post, but apparently missed what I was trying to say, as did Regression in his response. I was advocating adding the Word of God from scripture to your list, not putting iit n place of them.

Everything that we know about Jesus we know because of scripture, the Word of God. ** I did not say that revelation is limited to scripture, or that scripture was the only way by which we know Jesus. But it all starts there. **

Imagine what it would be like if no one took the time to actually record what Jesus said or did. Imagine if no one saved the letters of Paul, or the writings of the disciples! How would we know what God was saying, how could we agree on anything if all we had was some sketchy oral traditions to go on? Would that have been enough?

Yes, the New Testament is a continuation, a record of what was given to us orally. But if not written down, how would this record have been transmitted through the ages? Would we know how to pray, or to whom to pray, or what to pray for? Would we know anything about Jesus as the Son of God, or about the Trinity? Hard to see how that could happen without a biblical record.

We also wouldn’t know about the Eucharist, since the records we have of it all originated in the Gospels or from Paul. We wouldn’t know about baptism, unless someone recorded Jesus’ instructions. And how would we “know” His will unless we had some guidance passed down from the Apostles? How could we know the teachings of Jesus through the Church since the core of that teaching comes from scripture?

Again, I am not in any way downplaying other ways of knowing Jesus, but the first true, universal way that billions of people know Jesus is from the writings in the New Testament.

 

[happilycatholic]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, and for explaining your reason for not listing God’s Word as a way of knowing Christ. But I don’t think we are really that far apart. I must point out that you highlighted the key sentence in my post, but apparently missed what I was trying to say, as did Regression

in his response. I was advocating adding the Word of God from scripture to your list, not putting iit n place of them.

Everything that we know about Jesus we know because of scripture, the Word of God. **I did not say that revelation is limited to scripture, or that scripture was the only way by which we know Jesus. But it all starts there. **

Imagine what it would be like if no one took the time to actually record what Jesus said or did. Imagine if no one saved the letters of Paul, or the writings of the disciples! How would we know what God was saying, how could we agree on anything if all we had was some sketchy oral traditions to go on? Would that have been enough?

We would have devout catholics to adhere to the Church’s teachings the way Christ’s disciples followed Him without question. This is what we are called to do. Trust in the Lord, not an interpretation of the Lord. Trust that the Lord has given the Word to those that have a responsibility to spread it. Trust that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

What will you do if in the next ten years we are taken over by a communist country and all Bibles are burned? Christ’s teachings will go on, no matter what. It’s the Church that is protected from the gates of hell, not Scripture.

Yes, the New Testament is a continuation, a record of what was given to us orally. But if not written down, how would this record have been transmitted through the ages?

I’m sorry, that did sound confrontational. I didn’t mean it that way . I should not have worded the first sentence of my response the way I did. My post was mostly to avoid the possible onslaught of “catholics don’t read the Bible” posts. I’m paranoid at times.

I do find your POV about the Bible being the only way we have of knowing Jesus a little curious though, but respectfully so. I guess I sort of see it from an eternal position. God is eternal in all three ways He has revealed Himself. The New Testament has only been around for a couple thousand years so I have a hard time believing that God really needed to give us Scripture to reveal Himself to us. Especially since we already knew God. And in light of God being willing to make Himself flesh on earth, the Scriptures pale in comparison.

See, you see Scripture as the Book that tells the story and without it, there is no story to tell. I don’t see Scripture that way. God is eternal, Scripture is not. The story of our salvation has existed throughout eternity, Scripture has not.

The Church is protected from all evil prevailing against it so it will always be there. That promise is true no matter which you consider to be the True Church. There is no such promise of Scripture.

Even God tells us the Word is with Him and has existed for eternity. That Word is not Scripture, but the Son of God.

But to answer these two questions:

"And how would we “know” His will unless we had some guidance passed down from the Apostles? How could we know the teachings of Jesus through the Church since the core of that teaching comes from scripture? "

Because we got those very teachings from Christ. The Word Incarnate. Even if the first word had never been written the Church would be doing the same things. The Church doesn’t need the Scriptures as proof of Christianity and its teachings, the Church is Christianity and its teachings. The Church is the living Word of God. Not to be confused with the Incarnate Word of God as I mentioned before.

The Church is the messenger, not the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the Divinely Inspired written instructions of God already in place within His Church. All of the things that are in Scripture were already being done. There is not a single thing written in Scripture that was a new revelation which, when instituted, began right then and there. If that were true, Christianity couldn’t have been initiated until the first Bible was canonized and if it were to be relied upon as the only revelation of God’s Holy Word, would have had to have been distributed throughout the world in short order after the death of Christ to continue the growth of Christianity.

All of this is to say that Scripture is not responsible for the initiation, the spread, nor the perservance of Christianity, nor was Scripture given such a commision by Christ. These responsibilities were given to the Church by Christ.

And that is my humble opinion and may not be worth a plug nickel.

 

[geometer]

Knowing Jesus is to know yehoshuah. Which is the fulfillment of the first commandment of the decalogue.

Yehoshuah means one delivered by God. The first commandment is to know ‘the Lord your God, who has brought you out of bondage…’

When you have been, delivered(sent) by God, you know all you need to know.