My Questions about Christianity

[lemondiesel]

Feel free to answer any of the questions, these are some that I wrote down specifically to ask this forum :dancing:

1075 A.D. Pope Gregory VII proclaims:
“That he himself (the pope) may be judged by no one.”

**1. **Can we question his judgments?

Also on that Dictatus Papae;
“The Roman church has never erred;nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

2. The Church claims to never make mistakes? What does it do with new scientific discoveries, does it amend to them?

“That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered Catholic.”

3. So if we disagree with anything the church teaches are we not considered Catholic?

“That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.”

4. I am not trying to sound all “Da Vinci Cody” but doesn’t this suggest that there could possibly be Gospels and other stories after the time of Jesus that do not describe him as “Divine”

On the issue of Jesus and the Gospels:
**5. **Well my main question is, do Christians believe his miracles were true? Or are they more metaphorical? (not including the death and resurrection)

**6. ** Does Jesus 12 apostles parallel the Old Testament 12 Tribes?

7. ** Caesar Augustus was called Divine, Son of God, God, and God from God which is parallel to Jesus’ names of Lord, Redeemer, Liberator, and Saviour of the World.
I am not trying to prove anything, my question is; 8.** Is there a parallel between Jesus and Augustus? (Meaning did biblical writers take the names of an emperor and apply them to a destitute?)

9. Was the time that Jesus came significant? Why did he come at that moment in time?

I am wondering, because although I was baptized and confirmed Catholic, I just simply do not agree with much of the Church’s teachings. Maybe you guys can help me changed that

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Feel free to answer any of the questions, these are some that I wrote down specifically to ask this forum :dancing:

No problem!

1075 A.D. Pope Gregory VII proclaims:
“That he himself (the pope) may be judged by no one.”

**1. **Can we question his judgments?

I believe the Pope here is referring to stements made in ex cathedra, or ifallibly.

Also on that Dictatus Papae;
“The Roman church has never erred;nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

2. The Church claims to never make mistakes? What does it do with new scientific discoveries, does it amend to them?

It’s not claiming it never makes mistakes per se, it’s claiming that when it makes an infallible declaration then that infallible declaration cannot be wrong. The statement they make must be understood to be official and infallible. If it is neither, then it can be changed.

“That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered Catholic.”

3. So if we disagree with anything the church teaches are we not considered Catholic?

If you disagree with anything the Church defines dogmatically you are no longer a Catholic in good standing.

“That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.”

4. I am not trying to sound all “Da Vinci Cody” but doesn’t this suggest that there could possibly be Gospels and other stories after the time of Jesus that do not describe him as “Divine”

Yep. But they are not inspired. Only the Church, due to the authority given to her by God, can decide which books are in fact inspired. If any books do not claim Jesus as divine, they are not inspired by God.

On the issue of Jesus and the Gospels:
**5. **Well my main question is, do Christians believe his miracles were true? Or are they more metaphorical? (not including the death and resurrection)

I have yet to meet a Christian who believed his miracles were netaphorical.

**6. ** Does Jesus 12 apostles parallel the Old Testament 12 Tribes?

That’s my understanding of it.

7. ** Caesar Augustus was called Divine, Son of God, God, and God from God which is parallel to Jesus’ names of Lord, Redeemer, Liberator, and Saviour of the World.
I am not trying to prove anything, my question is; 8.** Is there a parallel between Jesus and Augustus? (Meaning did biblical writers take the names of an emperor and apply them to a destitute?)

I doubt it, but I suppose it’s possible (not that I consider Jesus a destitute exactly).

9. Was the time that Jesus came significant? Why did he come at that moment in time?

Good question. I’m not sure, but then I’m not omniscient. Whatever the reason he chose, Christianity right now is the largest religion in the world, and Catholicism its largest branch, so he apparently knew what he was doing.

I am wondering, because although I was baptized and confirmed Catholic, I just simply do not agree with much of the Church’s teachings. Maybe you guys can help me changed that

I hope so!

 

[Redratfish]

I can answer a few of these.

1.The verse that Pope Gregory said is not in context. Without seeing the rest of what he wrote, I cannot answer.

2.First off the Church does not claim to be infallible at all times. Only in the case of morals and faith. Both of which can be backed by scripture. Now, in cases like theistic evolution, the believer is free to choose whether to believe or not.

1. Like I said before, if it is a matter of faith and morals, then yes, you are not a Catholic. Think about it, would you be a Christian if you didn’t believe Jesus was the son of God?
2. Never read the Da Vinci Code, so once again no answer.
3. Truth. It goes into specific detail on many of the miracles, and lists figures that history can prove existed at the time. The wedding at Cana was seen by many for example.
4. I believe so, I see nothing wrong with that.
5. and 8. -Am not sure
6. I remember reading someplace that it was important, but someone will need to clarify. However, as I mentioned before, many of the people and places in the Bible are historically correct. For me it adds legitimacy to the Bible.

Hope I helped on a few of these.

 

[lemondiesel]

Thanks for the responses guys!

many of the people and places in the Bible are historically correct. For me it adds legitimacy to the Bible.

So do Christians believe the first Five books were truly written by Moses? If so, I can make an excellent argument for the Bible first being written and collected around 800-700 BCE.

 

[lemondiesel]

I have yet to meet a Christian who believed his miracles were netaphorical.

Okay, I am glad you said this because I want to go deeper into this issue if that’s cool.

If Jesus performed miracles like raising the dead (I think there were three resurrection stories if I remember correctly?) Why were his disciples surprised of his resurrection? I mean shouldn’t they have expected it if He has already done it before?

My views are that they were metaphorical. All of the miracles, walking on water, changing water to wine, resurrection, are impossible feats. If I was writing a story about someone, and I wanted his legacy to carry on and not be forgotten, why not write about him defying the impossible? Surely this would leave a lasting impression.

And even with his healing miracles, Jesus healed the illness, not the disease. Illness could be the mental problems associated with the disease and the disease being the actual sickness. Jesus healed the illness of the Lepra, not Lepracy. He made the individual overcome the illness, to overcome the suffering.

just my opinion i guess…

Jesus revolutionized the Bible. We can see this from a savage God in the Old Testament to a loving, caring, and moral God who does not interfere in the New Testament.

 

[VetA]

Thanks for the responses guys!

So do Christians believe the first Five books were truly written by Moses? If so, I can make an excellent argument for the Bible first being written and collected around 800-700 BCE.

idk if christians believed that but the jews did, but how could he have because parts of it occur after his death so i dont think the church says that he wrote the whole thing, i believe he was the main author

written down and collected, yes, but oral history was the main way of communicating stories in antiquity (especially during 3000-1000bc)

 

[lemondiesel]

written down and collected, yes, but oral history was the main way of communicating stories in antiquity (especially during 3000-1000bc)

And oral history is more subject to change, even more than trying to interpret words written down 2000 years ago.

 

[tonyrey]

1075 A.D. Pope Gregory VII proclaims:
“That he himself (the pope) may be judged by no one.”

**1. **Can we question his judgments?

Of course we can. The Pope is fallible except on matters of faith and morals in clearly defined circumstances.

Also on that Dictatus Papae;

“The Roman church has never erred;nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

2. The Church claims to never make mistakes? What does it do with new scientific discoveries, does it amend to them?

Most scientific discoveries are not related to faith and morals. If they are the Church assesses their significance.

“That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered Catholic.”

3. So if we disagree with anything the church teaches are we not considered Catholic?

The Church is not regarded as infallible in every respect.

“That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.”

4. I am not trying to sound all “Da Vinci Cody” but doesn’t this suggest that there could possibly be Gospels and other stories after the time of Jesus that do not describe him as “Divine”

It is not only possible but probable! There were plenty of heretical scriptures in circulation.

On the issue of Jesus and the Gospels:
**5. **Well my main question is, do Christians believe his miracles were true? Or are they more metaphorical? (not including the death and resurrection)

It would be odd if Jesus hadn’t healed the sick. Raising Lazarus was an intimation of His own Resurrection.

**6. ** Does Jesus 12 apostles parallel the Old Testament 12 Tribes?

It seems likely.

7. ** Caesar Augustus was called Divine, Son of God, God, and God from God which is parallel to Jesus’ names of Lord, Redeemer, Liberator, and Saviour of the World.
I am not trying to prove anything, my question is; 8.** Is there a parallel between Jesus and Augustus? (Meaning did biblical writers take the names of an emperor and apply them to a destitute?)

Why would they have done this?

9. Was the time that Jesus came significant? Why did he come at that moment in time?

Human beings had developed sufficiently to be able to understand and appreciate His teaching, as we can see from Greek philosophy - particularly Plato and Aristotle. The Roman Empire also provided an opportunity to communicate the Good News throughout the known world.

 

[antunesaa]

Okay, I am glad you said this because I want to go deeper into this issue if that’s cool.

If Jesus performed miracles like raising the dead (I think there were three resurrection stories if I remember correctly?) Why were his disciples surprised of his resurrection? I mean shouldn’t they have expected it if He has already done it before?

My views are that they were metaphorical. All of the miracles, walking on water, changing water to wine, resurrection, are impossible feats. If I was writing a story about someone, and I wanted his legacy to carry on and not be forgotten, why not write about him defying the impossible? Surely this would leave a lasting impression.

As to why the disciplines were surprised that Jesus resurrected, I would say it’s of our own nature to doubt and be fearful of the unknown. They knew they were going to face persecution and death if the prophecy of Jesus turned out accurate. Perhaps secretly they wanted that everything turned out false. Perhaps they thought that the miracles they had witnessed were some kind of magic, or the works of an especially talented person. The fact that later they did face persecution and death attests to their own conversion to Jesus. The attitude of the apostles and disciples looks to me quintessentially human.

As to the miracles, you say they are impossible feats. If you’re an atheist, this is a coherent statement: there are immutable physical laws that cannot be temporarily suspended. But if you open the possibility that God exists, then saying that the physical laws cannot be changed is like saying that you can paint the Mona Lisa - that is, create the Universe, the ultimate miracle - but you cannot draw the face of Mickey Mouse - that is, perform a miracle. You don’t believe in miracles if and only if you don’t believe in God.

 

[lemondiesel]

As to why the disciplines were surprised that Jesus resurrected, I would say it’s of our own nature to doubt and be fearful of the unknown. They knew they were going to face persecution and death if the prophecy of Jesus turned out accurate. Perhaps secretly they wanted that everything turned out false. Perhaps they thought that the miracles they had witnessed were some kind of magic, or the works of an especially talented person. The fact that later they did face persecution and death attests to their own conversion to Jesus. The attitude of the apostles and disciples looks to me quintessentially human.

Fair enough. I am just saying if someone was truly raising people from the dead in front of me, I would rational think he could do it to himself.

As to the miracles, you say they are impossible feats. If you’re an atheist, this is a coherent statement: there are immutable physical laws that cannot be temporarily suspended. But if you open the possibility that God exists, then saying that the physical laws cannot be changed is like saying that you can paint the Mona Lisa - that is, create the Universe, the ultimate miracle - but you cannot draw the face of Mickey Mouse - that is, perform a miracle. You don’t believe in miracles if and only if you don’t believe in God.

Yet if Jesus was 100% Man and 100% God, should he have not been subject to the physical laws?

 

[lemondiesel]

Why would they have done this?

To show the Emperor is no more special than any common man. You can be from the lower class and still be “son of God” because this God promotes equality to all.

 

[AndrewA]

Fair enough. I am just saying if someone was truly raising people from the dead in front of me, I would rational think he could do it to himself.

Yet if Jesus was 100% Man and 100% God, should he have not been subject to the physical laws?

God is author of physical law.

 

[lemondiesel]

God is author of physical law.

Yes but if he becomes 100% Man, than he is becoming subject to those physical laws. This issue goes with the question, why did Jesus pray to heaven, when he is God?

I just sense a Dualism when it comes to 100% Man and 100% God.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Okay, I am glad you said this because I want to go deeper into this issue if that’s cool.

If Jesus performed miracles like raising the dead (I think there were three resurrection stories if I remember correctly?) Why were his disciples surprised of his resurrection? I mean shouldn’t they have expected it if He has already done it before?

My views are that they were metaphorical. All of the miracles, walking on water, changing water to wine, resurrection, are impossible feats. If I was writing a story about someone, and I wanted his legacy to carry on and not be forgotten, why not write about him defying the impossible? Surely this would leave a lasting impression.

And even with his healing miracles, Jesus healed the illness, not the disease. Illness could be the mental problems associated with the disease and the disease being the actual sickness. Jesus healed the illness of the Lepra, not Lepracy. He made the individual overcome the illness, to overcome the suffering.

just my opinion i guess…

Jesus revolutionized the Bible. We can see this from a savage God in the Old Testament to a loving, caring, and moral God who does not interfere in the New Testament.

Maybe it’s just me, but when somebody raises the dead any number of times I’d be shocked. Jesus surely had power over death, so that’s not really that ridiculous.

All that other stuff that you call “impossible” seems kind of limiting. Jesus did indeed limit himself by taking a human body, but he could still call for the intercession of the Father and he still had power normal humans did not have.

As for your points about the Torah not being written by Moses, that would not surprise me at all and I really don’t care. The books were defined as inerrant and thus are inerrant regardless of the author.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Yes but if he becomes 100% Man, than he is becoming subject to those physical laws. This issue goes with the question, why did Jesus pray to heaven, when he is God?

I just sense a Dualism when it comes to 100% Man and 100% God.

Jesus chose to limit himself and become like man, and thus used none of the advantages he of course had as God. Obviously a human would pray to the Father for intercession.

Jesus COULD do whatever he wanted, since he was God. Most of the time, he chose not to do whatever he wanted.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

As to why the disciplines were surprised that Jesus resurrected, I would say it’s of our own nature to doubt and be fearful of the unknown. They knew they were going to face persecution and death if the prophecy of Jesus turned out accurate. Perhaps secretly they wanted that everything turned out false. Perhaps they thought that the miracles they had witnessed were some kind of magic, or the works of an especially talented person. The fact that later they did face persecution and death attests to their own conversion to Jesus. The attitude of the apostles and disciples looks to me quintessentially human.

This.

 

[tonyrey]

To show the Emperor is no more special than any common man. You can be from the lower class and still be “son of God” because this God promotes equality to all.

I still don’t see why you think the Biblical writers would have aped a Roman emperor for one thing and applied the terms to a “destitute” for another…

 

[lemondiesel]

I still don’t see why you think the Biblical writers would have aped a Roman emperor for one thing and applied the terms to a “destitute” for another…

If you ever have free time (about an hour or two) I really recommend the series called Lives of Jesus. In that series there is a film called “Jesus the Rebel,” and it actually presents some very good arguments about the historical Jesus.

Its not going to prove/disprove your beliefs, I just highly recommend it.

 

[tonyrey]

I still don’t see why you think the Biblical writers would have aped a Roman emperor for one thing and applied the terms to a “destitute” for another…

In the meantime you could give a reason for your speculation…

 

[Betterave]

Feel free to answer any of the questions, these are some that I wrote down specifically to ask this forum :dancing:

1075 A.D. Pope Gregory VII proclaims:
“That he himself (the pope) may be judged by no one.”

**1. **Can we question his judgments?

This is actually a history question, not a philosophy question. Pope (Saint) Gregory VII’s claim has nothing to do with his judgments. It is the claim that temporal powers (i.e., kings, including the Holy Roman Emperor) have no jurisdiction over the government of the Church. E.g., the Emperor has no juridical standing such that he can depose the Pope or interfere with the governance of the Church.

9. Was the time that Jesus came significant? Why did he come at that moment in time?

We believe the time was significant, that God sent his only begotten Son “in the fullness of time.” We have to take educated guesses about why that time was right. An answer I’ve heard, roughly, is that it relates to the relative political stability and intellectual development of the hellenized Roman empire at the time which foreshadowed and prepared the way for the notion of a universal religion based on universal claims, and facilitated the rapid spread of Christianity that occurred, blah blah blah, etc. (for whatever it’s worth - I’m no expert).