B
benhur
Guest
Nope.Nope.
Are you proposing that he did?
Just helps me understand what it means for Him to be error free in our current covenant, and the conditions for our infallibility, not His.
- Status
Just helps me understand what it means for Him to be error free in our current covenant, and the conditions for our infallibility, not His.
B
benhur
Guest
That is right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day !
B
benhur
Guest
Actually I think He meant He is what He is , the " I am", the name God gave Himself for and to Moses and the Israelites, representing no beginning and no end and a revealer of Himself .Exodus 3:14
B
benhur
Guest
Hey, you mention my SS buddy Barnabus who wrote, " Let him who is knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written".
P
PRmerger
Guest
What did he say right before the Jews picked up stones to kill him?
Why would they want to support Paul’s personal revelation?
You are saying that the witnesses lied about seeing Jesus resurrected, yes?
P
PRmerger
Guest
You acknowledge that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Paul and Peter were infallible when they wrote their manuscripts, yes?
P
PRmerger
Guest
What is the point of this, ben?
At any rate, Barnabas was an important figure in the early Church. Do you believe his texts are theopneustos?
No?
Why not?
Answer: because the CC told you it’s not.
There is no other answer, ben.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So you are saying that the Church just by coincidence got the 27 book canon of the NT correct?
S
seaton2005
Guest
The underpinning of your questions assumes (albeit arrogantly) that the Catholic faith is the only church to go to know what Jesus said. I’m a cradle Catholic and believe that with any religion you can learn what Jesus said. We have to get over this arrogance.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Can you tell me how a Presbyterian knows what Jesus said, except through submitting to the authority of the CC, seaton?
Isn’t this a bit arrogant, seaton, to think that your position is correct (any religion can tell us what Jesus said) and that mine is wrong?
M
mek42
Guest
Does it have to be witnesses making false statements? Why couldn’t it be the later authors of the books adding something akin to theological allegory to their known accounts? Or a simple version of the telephone game as time passed. Like I said, I’m still reading Tabor and would do a poor job parroting him.
As for the poster hoping I get off the fence, better to be uncertain than wrong, no?
P
PRmerger
Guest
So with any of these ancient texts, they were written within a generation of the event.
Surely folks who knew these texts were a lie would have stepped forward, yes?
And again, who lied and why?
This is true.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thanks, icmahif.
Dronald,
Who knows, maybe everyone else is here for the save reason as me.
Dronald,
To be honest, I came to this thread hoping to find out why it’s so popular, particularly with y’all “Non-Catholic” posters … But I still haven’t really figured it out.
Who knows, maybe everyone else is here for the save reason as me.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Can you walk us through how this happened, mek?
Jesus was crucified, but did not rise from the dead…and then the story appeared that he rose from the dad (but actually didn’t)…
who started the story?
why?
why didn’t folks who knew the real story come forward?
why did the folks who lied never recant their story, even when they were tortured and died horrific deaths? why did they die smiling with “He is risen!” on their lips?
D
dronald
Guest
Because it’s so obviously wonderful.Thanks, icmahif.
Dronald,
To be honest, I came to this thread hoping to find out why it’s so popular, particularly with y’all “Non-Catholic” posters … But I still haven’t really figured it out.
Who knows, maybe everyone else is here for the save reason as me.
I
icamhif
Guest
Keep in mind that bad polemics exist in all religious sides. In any given forum, the polemics that dominate the discussion tend to be the ones that favor the religion that the majority of the posters hold. This is a Catholic forum, so you can only expect there to be at least a few overzealous Catholics who seem to make a hobby out of putting down Protestants. But that in no way discredits Catholicism. At worst, it only discredits the apologetics of that particular poster. The same rule applies for Protestant forums and Orthodox forums.
P
PRmerger
Guest
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
If they were going to lie about the Resurrection they would have done a better job of it. Just for starters, all four gospels name women as the first people Jesus appeared to. Any first century Jewish man cooking up a lie would not have done that. In first century Jerusalem, women were not acceptable witnesses. Their word was not taken. So, if anyone was lying about the Resurrection, they would have placed men at the tomb, not women.
Second, nothing but the Resurrection can account for the radically changed life of the apostles. Prior to the Resurrection, they were hiding in fear. John was the only disciple to stand at the foot of the Cross, as I’m sure you all know. Yet after the Resurrection, all of the apostles became very active. All were eventually martyred except for John, and he was thrown in a vat of boiling oil, though it doesn’t seem to have harmed him.
I could go on and on and on, but I’m sure most of you know all of this. Liars would have done a better job of it.
Second, nothing but the Resurrection can account for the radically changed life of the apostles. Prior to the Resurrection, they were hiding in fear. John was the only disciple to stand at the foot of the Cross, as I’m sure you all know. Yet after the Resurrection, all of the apostles became very active. All were eventually martyred except for John, and he was thrown in a vat of boiling oil, though it doesn’t seem to have harmed him.
I could go on and on and on, but I’m sure most of you know all of this. Liars would have done a better job of it.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Strangely this was disputed by sincere and educated Christians, who certainly knew their NT, up until C4.
This, and Imprimatured and Nihil-Obstat Scriptural Scholarship into the Christological phrases accorded to Jesus by the Gospel writers (which does not necessarily mean Jesus actually spoke those very words) suggests we would be jumping the gun to be too confident about this.
Yes the incident you mention in John contains some of the highest Christological phrases accorded to Jesus. Not surprisingly such high titles are found in the NT book most distant (and most theological) from the actual time of Jesus. It is generally considered that the writer was not even the youngest apostle - but rather his disciple.
These titles/phrases, allegedly spoken by Jesus, are unlikely fully consonant with what we mean today by saying “Jesus is God.” Yes John certainly presents Jesus as claiming to be greater than Abraham hence the stoning. (The same was attempted in Nazareth when he merely suggested that he was a prophet.) But what sort of person he was understood to be claiming to be - that is another issue.
Even some of the great Christian dogmas were not explicitly clear in the Early Church - they were implicit and took time to be widely understood and affirmed.
Yes the nuns taught us everything was black and white from year Resurrection.
Surely we need to move beyond such simplistic thinking which behooves children but perhaps not adults.
I don’t expect you to agree, but it is acceptable for Catholic scholars to hold such a position and it likely better respects what the average follower/Christian actually understood in the first century or two in the Early Church. … let alone in Jesus’s own lifetime.
It also explains why sincere and educated Catholics on both sides fiercely debated the Divinity of Jesus for 300 years.
R
rcwitness
Guest
In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul is talking about personal disputes and grievances. These are trivial matters which Paul was criticizing some for not acknowledging the ability of the local Church and Her wiser members to deal with according to faith.
While this still gives testimony to the practice of believing that God Himself provided a means to resolve all disputes and divisions, it is not addressing the more weightier issues which also must be taken to the Church for resolution. Paul Himself was sent by a local Church, as representing the case for Gentiles being accepted in the Church, to a Council of the highest authorities in the Church. Paul also, by way of revelation, spent 15 days with Peter to lay out the Gospel and ministry he was preaching. He did This for Confirmation.
Also, Jesus told His Apostles, that when matters of discerning morality, the Church’s decision has His own guidance.
You see, when an issue over something regarding faith and morals is brought before the judgment of the Church, it can be appealed as far as an individual or group feels justifiable. If the issue is brought all the way to the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop hears, considers, and gives a statement or address to the Church at large, then This is him using the keys (or the authority of Christ) to bind a decision. The conditions of infallibility have been defined. When They are met, that is the binding and losening.
dronald,
You expressed some frustration over how these discussions go sometimes. I understand in part where you can feel that way. But over all, I think They are a good fellowship. There are all sorts of questions and discussions. Some are rather tidious while others straight forward and resolved without dispute. Some about eclesial law, while others about relationships or prayer requests or just appreciation and study of bible passages, stories and characters. I hope you do find what you are looking for here, as I’ve appreciated much of your genuine faith. I like the non-Cat sub-fórum. I usually go here or to Scripture.
- Status