What did the crowd not know?

[OneSheep]

Good Morning!

Perhaps for you, there were no strings, but for me, it seemed like an effort to have non-Catholic views accepted as Catholic. Later, more and more strings became attached to it.

Yeah, the more meanings that got loaded into it, and the more negative appraisals on my character for declining the further away I became.

It’s really too bad that you saw it that way. What would it take to change your mind about it being so “loaded”?

I see that. I see that you have different ways of demonstrating your disrespect and approval. I gave many examples in post 154 of things I found uncharitable, disrespectful, and hurtful. As it stands, it appears what you consider disrespectful has more value and importance than what I find hurtful.

As you may recall, I apologized for any disrespect communicated in my asking for a handshake. In addition, I apologized for any hurt I may have caused. Do you forgive me?

I am not sure if we have the same person in mind, but people who want to think their views are Catholic, and are repeatedly told they are not do tend to get very defensive.

Do you “want” to think your views are Catholic? If your answer is “Well, my views are Catholic”, how would you feel about that? Would you like to have someone constantly telling you and everyone listening that your views are not Catholic?

This is why I say that knowledge about what the Church teaches does not necessarily make anyone a “better Catholic”. That knowledge does not always translate itself into behavior.

Yes, a better behavior would be one that is loving, charitable, respectful. It would be a behavior that honors people, not dishonors.

I started listing before you encouraged me to make a list.

Actually, the list I asked for was all the things that you think I am saying that you see as non-Catholic.

I am doing the list for neither reason. I recognize that you will feel dishonored by me no matter what I do, unless it is complete compliance with your wishes.

This, guanophore, is a claim that you know what I am thinking, which is considered uncharitable on the CAF.

I find mean comments off putting. Once someone has been mean, I am less likely to give much credence to what they say.

Would you find that a person refusing to shake hands with you off-putting too? How about if they were to repeatedly call your views “non-Catholic”?

Would they know what they are doing?

 

[OneSheep]

Insofar as you are still promoting deviation from Catholic Teaching as still Catholic, no, I do not find a difference. In some ways, nothing has changed.

You seem to want the Church to change it’s doctrines to accommodate your views. The CCC needs to be updated, and edited, and clarified, etc. so that deviations from the traditional concepts of what is Catholic can be accommodated.

The CCC teaches that doctrine is what was deposited by Christ, through the Apostles to the Church. It was a “once for all” deposit. It cannot be added to, or subtracted from. It is immutable, since it comes from Christ, who is immutable. A statement like this would seem to indicate that you do not accept what the Church believes and teaches.

Hmmm. Where does the CCC say that? Please give me something to study.

In the mean time, I acknowledge and see your good intent, that you mean to protect “the readers” from harm.

The Sanhedrin and the crowd also meant to protect people from harm, right? All condemnation has an underlying fear, and a drive to protect something very valuable. The crowd and leaders were seeking to protect their faith from something intrusive and wrong.

So, for the crowd probably one of the biggest things they did not know is that there was nothing to fear from Jesus, that He was there to save and create, not to destroy. If they could have addressed their fears and really played them through, i.e. “what could possibly happen if we let Him continue?” they could have addressed those fears head-on.

A priest once taught me how to address my fears. He said, “what is the worst thing that could happen?” and encouraged me to take it from there, to work through those feared scenarios.

What is it, specifically, that you are worried about? It is pretty clear that you are very protective of scripture, and especially a strict interpretation of scripture. You are also very protective of doctrine. Do you fear changes in interpretation and wording? If so, what is it, specifically, that you fear?

The crowd may have answered, “He says he will destroy the temple, we fear that he plans to do so.” “He says that he is the son of God. He is crazy, we cannot have masses of people following a lunatic.” The leaders may have answered: “He is a threat to our power and control of the nation, he may lead people against us and remove us, a coup”.

Does this adequately address their fears, or do you have more to add?

 

[guanophore]

This, guanophore, is a claim that you know what I am thinking, which is considered uncharitable on the CAF.

No, OS, it is an observation based upon your posts, which is what CAF is all about. I have affirmed your needs in this area. You have stated that your views are integrated with your relationship with God, yourself, and other people. I accept that you must cling to these views and believe they are Catholic no matter how long the list may become of other Catholics who try to tell you otherwise.

Would you find that a person refusing to shake hands with you off-putting too? How about if they were to repeatedly call your views “non-Catholic”?

I don’t have this hangup with handshaking, so I don’t think I would. Your own methods of character disparagement were much more effective in my case.

My response to being informed my views are not Catholic is to study, pray, and conform. I don’t deny that learning my views were not Catholic was painful and embarrassing for me. I think if many people continued to tell me this over a period of years I think it would give me pause.

Would they know what they are doing?

Yes, each time it ihas happened, they were right, and I was wrong. Some of them were not even Catholic, which is why I say that knowing wht the Church teaches does not necessarily make a person a better or worse Catholic.

Actually, the list I asked for was all the things that you think I am saying that you see as non-Catholic.

I started working on this before you asked for it, but I decided to make this sublist in the process, since I was wondering if you felt the same wound with all these other folks.

This, guanophore, is a claim that you know what I am thinking, which is considered uncharitable on the CAF.

No, OS, it is an observation based upon your posts, which is what CAF is all about. I have affirmed your needs in this area. You have stated that your views are integrated with your relationship with God, yourself, and other people. I accept that you must cling to these views and believe they are Catholic no matter how long the list may become of other Catholics who try to tell you otherwise.

Would you find that a person refusing to shake hands with you off-putting too? How about if they were to repeatedly call your views “non-Catholic”?

I don’t have this hangup with handshaking, so I don’t think I would. Your own methods of character disparagement were much more effective in my case.

My response to being informed my views are not Catholic is to study, pray, and conform. I don’t deny that learning my views were not Catholic was painful and embarrassing for me. I think if many people continued to tell me this over a period of years I think it would give me pause.

Would they know what they are doing?

Yes, each time it ihas happened, they were right, and I was wrong. Some of them were not even Catholic, which is why I say that knowing wht the Church teaches does not necessarily make a person a better or worse Catholic.

Actually, the list I asked for was all the things that you think I am saying that you see as non-Catholic.

I started working on this before you asked for it, but I decided to make this sublist in the process, since I was wondering if you felt the same wound with all these other folks.

This, guanophore, is a claim that you know what I am thinking, which is considered uncharitable on the CAF.

No, OS, it is an observation based upon your posts, which is what CAF is all about. I have affirmed your needs in this area. You have stated that your views are integrated with your relationship with God, yourself, and other people. I accept that you must cling to these views and believe they are Catholic no matter how long the list may become of other Catholics who try to tell you otherwise.

Would you find that a person refusing to shake hands with you off-putting too? How about if they were to repeatedly call your views “non-Catholic”?

I don’t have this hangup with handshaking, so I don’t think I would. Your own methods of character disparagement were much more effective in my case.

My response to being informed my views are not Catholic is to study, pray, and conform. I don’t deny that learning my views were not Catholic was painful and embarrassing for me. I think if many people continued to tell me this over a period of years I think it would give me pause.

Would they know what they are doing?

Yes, each time it ihas happened, they were right, and I was wrong. Some of them were not even Catholic, which is why I say that knowing wht the Church teaches does not necessarily make a person a better or worse Catholic.

There is no requirement here at CAF that members be Catholic. Other belief systems are welcome, so long as they are respectful of the Catholic faith. It occurs to me that posting non-Catholic views while claiming to be Catholic is a form of disrespect for Catholicism.:bigyikes:

 

[guanophore]

It’s really too bad that you saw it that way. What would it take to change your mind about it being so “loaded”?

As unpleasant as the experience has been, it may not be such a bad thing. It has given me clarity about your methods, and the consequences to those who do not comply with them. Besides, I have since realized that pointing out your positions are not Catholic is going to be perceived as disrespectful, dishonoring and uncharitable whether I comply with the demand to shake hands, or not.

Do you “want” to think your views are Catholic? If your answer is “Well, my views are Catholic”, how would you feel about that? Would you like to have someone constantly telling you and everyone listening that your views are not Catholic?

I must admit that I have been quite alarmed and dismayed several times when coming to learn that my views have not been Catholic. No, I do no want my views to be viewed as Catholic. I want ot conform my views to what is Catholic. This is one essential area where your position differs from those who embrace Catholicsm. The Church calls us to submit our views to what Jesus taught/teaches. It is for us to conform ourselves to Him, not the other way around.

Yes, a better behavior would be one that is loving, charitable, respectful. It would be a behavior that honors people, not dishonors.

While I agree that it is a much more pleasant experience when others agree with me, disagreement does not equate to lack of charity, respect, or dishonor. It seems this way to you because you have equated your personhood to the views you have posted here, so disagreement is then experienced in this negative manner.

In the course of composing the rather extensive list of your views that are not consistent with Catholic faith, I have encountered a number of Catholcs who have informned you (some of them repeatedly) about your posted positions. Here is a partial list with the post data in case you want to reveiw what they were trying to tell you.

Amandil forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12259051&postcount=490

Amandil forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12241193&postcount=384
Aug 7, '14,

Amandil forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12262847&postcount=508

Aug 20, '14, 4:07 pm
Mark121359
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12274106&postcount=581

21, '14, 3:34 pm
rinnie forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12276565&postcount=593

Aug 18, '14, 5:39 am
rinnie forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12267811&postcount=546

Aug 20, '14, 10:13 am
rinniehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12273211&postcount=569

Chefmomster2
May 9, '14, 10:34 am
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11979913&postcount=69

May 15, '14, 12:01 pm
(Even your buddy recognized there is no point trying to present you with evidence about sin)simpleas If I gave another example you’ll just say it’s blindness, or lack of empathy…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11996120&postcount=139

Aug 13, '14, 10:09 am
Tom Baum forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12255916&postcount=475

Aug 16, '14, 8:52 pm
Mark121359’s forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12265034&postcount=528

Aug 17, '14, 4:15 pm
powerofk forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12266764&postcount=543

Aug 23, '14, 2:31 pm
Buck Crosswhite forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12281653&postcount=612

Sep 29, '14, 6:51 pm
Aloysium forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12374900&postcount=928

Oct 16, '14, 10:37 am
Faxero forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12416590&postcount=1019

Sep 15, '11, 10:50 am
Scoobyshme forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8366603&postcount=2

Sep 15, '11, 11:41 am
ndeparis88 ndeparis88 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8366758&postcount=3

Sep 15, '11, 12:03 pm
Joe 5859http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8366825&postcount=4

Sep 18, '11, 8:29 pm
Chaplain777 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8377920&postcount=4

I am curious if you feel that all these Catholics are uncharitable, disrespectful, dishonoring, etc? Is this how everyone is categorized who judges your position to be in contradiction to what the Church teaches? I am beginning to think that there is no way to reach you on this besides a divine intervention (I will continue to pray for one).

Actually, the list I asked for was all the things that you think I am saying that you see as non-Catholic.

I started working on this before you asked for it, but I decided to make this sublist in the process, since I was wondering if you felt the same wound with all these other folks.

 

[OneSheep]

Dear Readers:

I encourage people to jump in and answer the question of this thread! If you read the first page, there are a lot of great answers. What I have been trying to do is “extend” this verse into how it relates to everyday life, specifically “when we do evil to one another, do we know what we are doing?”

Ultimately, we can learn how to understand people, especially why they sin against us, which leads to a more mature forgiveness.

My own “evils” in this thread have been inadvertent, for sure. I did not know that I was pressuring someone in a way that was hurtful. However, there are many, many other ways in which we do not know what we are doing when we do evil.

Feel free to come in and give your views!

I won’t bite, really. Sheep only bite herbaceous plants.

 

[guanophore]

 What I have been trying to do is "extend" this  verse into how it relates to everyday life, specifically "when we do evil to one another, do we know what we are doing?"

You seem to be invested in promoting the concept that no one ever willingly and knowingly rejects God. This would mean that there is no such thing as mortal sin, because mortal sin requires that the individual know the action is a “grave matter” yet chooses to engage in it anyway. You have “extended” the Church teaching by adding “all the relevant facts”, which is “extended” to apply to all the possible consequences of the action. This is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches., which is that “full knowledge” relates only to knowing that the Church considers the act a grave sin.

I am sure that the crowd did not know “all the relevant facts”, but I am equally sure that no human being can ever know them. This would require omnisicience. God does not require us to be omnisicient in order to prevent mortal sin. All we need to do is accept what the Church teaches, and follow it.

 

[OneSheep]

You seem to be invested in promoting the concept that no one ever willingly and knowingly rejects God. This would mean that there is no such thing as mortal sin, because mortal sin requires that the individual know the action is a “grave matter” yet chooses to engage in it anyway. You have “extended” the Church teaching by adding “all the relevant facts”, which is “extended” to apply to all the possible consequences of the action. This is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches., which is that “full knowledge” relates only to knowing that the Church considers the act a grave sin.

I am sure that the crowd did not know “all the relevant facts”, but I am equally sure that no human being can ever know them. This would require omnisicience. God does not require us to be omnisicient in order to prevent mortal sin. All we need to do is accept what the Church teaches, and follow it.

Dear Guanophore,

I would be happy to explain my views to you, but I have already tried. Whenever we get into any depth, you simply call what I am saying “humanist” or “non-Catholic” rather than actually try to understand and/or continue conversation. You have determined that my views are non-Catholic without truly understanding.

As far as “relevant facts” being an “extension”, this is your opinion, and is unsupported in teachings. One of the conversations you discontinued ended with my post 162. Would you like to answer there concerning relevance?

Here is another question for you: Did the crowd know the gravity of the sin they were committing? If you repent from your previous manner and actually try to understand rather than condemn, I will continue with a conversation. Note: The label/condemn label/condemn pattern is not an attempt to understand.

So, do you agree to try to understand my position? In my eyes, I say nothing contrary to Church teachings.

Otherwise, I am respectfully not going to get back on the merry-go-round with you. If you like, ask someone who will actually try to understand what I am saying to take your place, and I would be happy to engage with such a person!

 

[guanophore]

Dear Guanophore,

I would be happy to explain my views to you, but I have already tried. Whenever we get into any depth, you simply call what I am saying “humanist” or “non-Catholic” rather than actually try to understand and/or continue conversation. You have determined that my views are non-Catholic without truly understanding.

I think you have done a great job explaining your views, OS, and for the record, I want to give a public acclamation :clapping:

Since encountering you on these threads barely 2 months ago, I have already promoted the concept to at least a half a dozen people that it is important to forgive others, for they know not what they do. People are hurtful because they are ignorant and blind, and it poisons us to hang on to resentments. So I have benefitted personally and I think others have also from this understanding of Jesus’ words with HIs excecutioners.

If I was not listening to your explanations on your ideas, and understanding them, I would not be able to determine that some of them are not Catholic, so your statement does not make sense. The Faithful must compare what they are reading and hearing to the Teaching of the Church, and only then can one make a judgment about whether it is consistent or not with what was handed down from the Apostles.

As far as “relevant facts” being an “extension”, this is your opinion, and is unsupported in teachings.

The Church requires only that the individual know that the action is considered a grave matter by the Church. They do not need to be omniscient, or to know “all the relevant facts”. They don’t even need to know WHY the Church teaches it is grave, though this does help a great deal. For example, the Church teaches that adultery is “grave matter”. A person who is tempted into adultery may not understand 2000 years of Church history and instruction to accept that.

Your extension of this knowledge to cover “all the relevant facts” includes what is going on in the inner experience of the participants, the long term effects of their choices, etc. This means that a person would have to be omniscient to commit a mortal sin, which is not the case.

Here is another question for you: Did the crowd know the gravity of the sin they were committing? If you repent from your previous manner and actually try to understand rather than condemn, I will continue with a conversation. Note: The label/condemn label/condemn pattern is not an attempt to understand.

Their lack of knowledge of the gravity of the sin mitigates their culpability, but does not remove it.

Are you suggesting that a Catholic who commits the sin of adultery may not be culpable because they “don’t know the gravity of the sin”?

Calling a spade a spade is not a condemnation, OS. Spades are welcome at CAF, as are Humanists, so long as they agree to abide by the forum rules. Catholics have an obligation to know their faith, and discern when they encounter teachings that are not consistent with it. You seem to feel personally insulted because you desperately want your views to be seen as Catholic.

The Church teaches that the 10 commandments are “grave matter” and people who violate them may be committing mortal sin. If they know the commandments, and freely choose to violate them, they cannot be excused because they “did not know the gravity”.

So, do you agree to try to understand my position? In my eyes, I say nothing contrary to Church teachings.

I think what you are asking here is if I will accept/consent to your position being a “legitimate difference” within the Catholic faith. I cannot do that.

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! Gal 1:8

I would be excommunicating myself from the Catholic Church if I were to agree to many of your positions. My faith is the core of my life, and I am not willing to depart from it just so your feelings will not be hurt.

Otherwise, I am respectfully not going to get back on the merry-go-round with you. If you like, ask someone who will actually try to understand what I am saying to take your place, and I would be happy to engage with such a person!

I posted links to many persons who understood your positions and tried to tell you they were not Catholic. I think this would be the case of any well formed Catholic.

It brings to mind a suggestion I thought might help you, though. You might get a better audience for your views in a different venue. Perhaps a parish of people who are not well catechized, or a forum where there are not so many Catholics who know their faith so well. Your ideas are well dressed in religious language, and I think you could successfully promulgate them if you had a more receptive audience.

 

[OneSheep]

I think you have done a great job explaining your views, OS, and for the record, I want to give a public acclamation :clapping:

Since encountering you on these threads barely 2 months ago, I have already promoted the concept to at least a half a dozen people that it is important to forgive others, for they know not what they do. People are hurtful because they are ignorant and blind, and it poisons us to hang on to resentments. So I have benefitted personally and I think others have also from this understanding of Jesus’ words with HIs excecutioners.

Great! Thank you!

I think what you are asking here is if I will accept/consent to your position being a “legitimate difference” within the Catholic faith. I cannot do that.

This is not what I asked, guanophore. I am not asking for acceptance or consent, I am asking you if you are going to try to understand. If you are not going to try to understand, I will not continue to discuss these issues with you.

A priest once told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.” Do you disagree?

If you agree to try to understand, please answer the question from post 162:

And it is obvious that they greatly valued their Judaism, correct? Also, isn’t this lack knowing “by rejecting Him, they were rejecting their own Judaism” relevant?

Or answer, “Did the crowd know the gravity of their sin?” The answer is speculative, of course. If you don’t want to answer, that is okay, but that would essentially end discussion.

If you are not going to agree to try to understand, I prefer that you simply drop the discussion.

 

[OneSheep]

Did the crowd know the gravity of their sin?

I always took it to mean they didn’t know they were crucifying God and the Truth.

That Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Always figured it was that they wouldn’t be killing the Son of God had they known who he really was.

I think too that like us they really didn’t realize the gravity and effect of sin on themselves and the world.

I agree with all of these. The crowd did not know the consequences of the sin, they did not know that Jesus Christ was the son of God, they did not know the gravity of the sin. These lacks were relevant.

Knowing gravity is more than knowing “that” something is wrong. Knowing gravity is knowing the “weight” of the sin. If a person has heard that something is “wrong”, but does not know the weight of the sin, as explained above, then they do not know what they are doing.

Jesus observed that the crowd did not know the gravity of their sin. We can conclude that. The question is, then, does anyone ever know the gravity of their sin? Yes, as Judas, the person may awaken after-the-fact. But do they know the gravity, is it in their awareness, when they actually choose to sin? Well, not in case of the crucifixion.

Feel free to jump in, anyone!

 

[guanophore]

Great! Thank you!

This is not what I asked, guanophore. I am not asking for acceptance or consent, I am asking you if you are going to try to understand. If you are not going to try to understand, I will not continue to discuss these issues with you.

It seems to me that, if others disagree with you, then they don’t understand, so I do not think it is possible for you to feel understood by me. If I observe that some of your views are not consistent with the Catholic faith, you take it as a personal insult.

A priest once told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.” Do you disagree?

Yes, but I fear that you see another point of view as condemning.

And it is obvious that they greatly valued their Judaism, correct? Also, isn’t this lack knowing “by rejecting Him, they were rejecting their own Judaism” relevant?

Yes I believe so. They did not see Him as compliant with their ideas of Messiah.

I agree with all of these.

I do too.

 

[guanophore]

If you agree to try to understand, please answer the question from post 162:

I think there was a miscommunication in this post.

I was responding to this comment:

So, I am quite ready to get back onto the topic. We are not in a position to judge people, but we can certainly speculate as to what the crowd did not know.

I said that this method of using the individual imagination to speculate is a very solid Humanistic approach.

I am not sure why, but you are making references to the CCC…

You are judging my words, which were supported by the CCC, as “humanistic”. Why don’t you address the words of the CCC, presenting your own interpretation of them rather than saying that your version of Truth is so much better?

In fact, I did respond to this, and asked where in the CCC it talked about using speculative imagination? I could not find it.

I am not sure what “judging my words” means but I was making an observation about your METHOD.

I will ask again, please direct me to the part of the CCC that talks about using human imagination to speculate, and I will respond to it.

I will also reiterate, that there is nothing wrong with a Humanistic METHOD or approach to understanding human behavior.

Guanophore: “It is Humanistic because I say it is Humanistic”. It doesn’t work, friend. Could you just present your own points without labeling mine, or is that too much to ask?

I do agree. It is Humanistic because it is a METHOD of investigating human behavior and motivation. It is a speculative method of "putting yourself in their shoes. There is nothing pejorative in “labeling” it for what it is. If you were doing a genetic study on motivation and human behavior, and I said “this is an excellent application of human genetics” would you find that insulting? It is a human science.

I remember reading somewhere on the CAF that we are not supposed to label other's views, that it is uncharitable.

Please post this rule. I believe I addressed this also. We cannot know what another soul needs, or their relationship with God, but we can observe the content of their posts, and respond to it.

So, can you be a friend and stop the labelling?

I don’t think this would be conducive. How can a person who has not studied human sciences recognize that this is an evidence based method of studying human behavior? At least if they know it is a Humanistic method, they can pursue the study of it if they want to understand it more clearly. Do you have something against the study of human behavior using such evidence based methods?

This again confirms that the crowd and the leaders did not have “sufficient awareness” in their decision.

This is between each individual and their creator. I suspect there were many members of the crowd that knew what was happening was wrong.

OneSheep:

Can you read what I am saying here without labelling? Such labelling expresses a pre-judgement, a prejudice.

Recognizing an evidence based METHOD being used is not any kind of prejudice or judgmental act. I think you take it this way because you consider yourself being categorized as a “Humanist” like some kind of insult. Perhaps you think that you cannot be a Catholic and a Humanist?

OneSheep:

Please, try to be polite and respectful.

This sounds even more condescending to me now than it did the first time I read it. But it does indicate that you consider it disrespectful and rude for someone to disagree with your point of view.

OneSheep:

   What were the consequences of their actions such that if they did know, they would not have crucified Christ?  I am not asking you to judge, I am asking what you think.

In other words, put yourself in their shoes, just as presented on Palm Sunday mass. What would have changed your mind, specifically, about crucifying Jesus? Surely you must see that Peter, Mary, and others knew something that the crowd did not.

You are asking me to engage in an imaginative exercise of human speculation. I think you believe that using human imagination in this way will draw people closer to God as you understand Him - the unconditionally loving and forgiving God that no one can willfully and knowingly reject.

I think by asking me to demonstrate my willingness to dialogue by going back to post # 162 you are saying that, if I am NOT willing to engage in the imaginative exercise of human speculation, that demonstrates I am not interested in “understanding”, and if that is the case, there is no point continuing the dialogue.

Once again, we are at a point where I must comply with your demands, or there is no point to the conversation. It is like a “my way or the highway” situation.

 

[Faith1960]

And here I always thought he was just offering a critique about them not knowing how to carry out a proper execution.

I took it to mean they didn’t know any better, didn’t know right from wrong.

 

[guanophore]

I took it to mean they didn’t know any better, didn’t know right from wrong.

Even a crowd of Jewish peasants who were “uneducated” meaning that they did not have formal schooling in the Law would still have a basic (elementary) level of education about their own faith. By the age of 13, they could read the Hebrew Scriptures and be able to recite the Commandments and certain prayers. I think it is not practial to say that they didn’t know right from wrong at least so far as the 10 commandments were concerned.

Since they were in Jerusalem for the Passover, they were likely faithful Jews who knew enough about what their religion taught to celebrate that Feast, which means they were familiar with the history of the Exodus.

I was thinking about this yesterday, and I think they just had their "right and wrong " upsided down. It was the Law to put to death heretics, which is what Jesus was accused of being, so they may have believed they were doing what God wanted, by cleansing the bad seed from the community.

I am sure they were familiar with the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. So if they were participating in a killing, it was because they believed it was the right thing to do.

 

[guanophore]

Did the crowd know the gravity of their sin?

I agree with all of these. The crowd did not know the consequences of the sin, they did not know that Jesus Christ was the son of God, they did not know the gravity of the sin. These lacks were relevant.

God does not require us to be omniscient to follow His Laws. There is no way for a human being to possibly know all the consequences of our sins. We may be able to see some immediate elements (everyone sentenced to be crucified died) but we cannot know all the damage that will be caused to ourselves and others. Only God knows.

When God gave the 10 commandments, the people did not even know what all of them meant. Coming from an environment that was Pagan (Egypt) that had many Gods, worshipping only one God was quite a change. But God expected them to follow the commandments even though they did not fully know the gravity of consequences for failing to do so.

*Knowing gravity* is more than knowing "that" something is wrong.  Knowing gravity is knowing the "weight" of the sin.  If a person has heard that something is "wrong", but does not know the weight of the sin, as explained above, then they do not know what they are doing.

This is an erroneous conclusion, although I do agree with your premise. People know what they are doing on a very elementary level. If God says “thou shalt not kill” and a person participates in a killing, they know. Not knowing “all” is not required. God asks for obedience, not omniscience.

Jesus observed that the crowd did not know the gravity of their sin. We can conclude that. The question is, then, does anyone ever know the gravity of their sin? Yes, as Judas, the person may awaken after-the-fact. But do they know the gravity, is it in their awareness, when they actually choose to sin? Well, not in case of the crucifixion.

No human being can ever know the full gravity of their sins.

“Knowing” is not black and white, as you are suggesting. People know in part on many things. Among the crowd were those who had been baptized already, and had listened to Him preach, so they had some knowledge. Some may have known He was innocent. Even though they did not have “all the relevant facts” they had some relevant facts. They had a more complete knowledge of what was expected in a Messiah, and expected Jesus would fulfill it. This is why they greated him singing songs of the Son of David and laying down palm branches a few days earlier. Why would they do that, if they “did not know what they were doing”?

 

[simpleas]

Re: What did the crowd not know?

Maybe they didn’t know that they could have set themselves a part and declined to participate in the murder of Jesus.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by guanophore

“Knowing” is not black and white, as you are suggesting. People know in part on many things. Among the crowd were those who had been baptized already, and had listened to Him preach, so they had some knowledge. Some may have known He was innocent. Even though they did not have “all the relevant facts” they had some relevant facts. They had a more complete knowledge of what was expected in a Messiah, and expected Jesus would fulfill it. This is why they greated him singing songs of the Son of David and laying down palm branches a few days earlier. Why would they do that, if they “did not know what they were doing”?

Thinking on this, I find it a bit strange that the same people in the crowd that welcomed Jesus were the same crowd who called for his death. I mean was it a large percentage of the same people, or a small percentage mixed with others who didn’t know Jesus all that well if they had come from a further distance? (or don’t we know?)

 

[OneSheep]

Thinking on this, I find it a bit strange that the same people in the crowd that welcomed Jesus were the same crowd who called for his death. I mean was it a large percentage of the same people, or a small percentage mixed with others who didn’t know Jesus all that well if they had come from a further distance? (or don’t we know?)

Hi Simpleas

I’m not sure, yes we don’t know. We do know that people can change their minds, of course, so it doesn’t matter much. We only know that that the crowd and the leaders did not know what they were doing.

 

[OneSheep]

I took it to mean they didn’t know any better, didn’t know right from wrong.

Hi Faith,

Well, from what I understand, blasphemy was punishable by death (stoning). If the judicial authority of the Jewish people present made/indicated a ruling, it is not far-fetched to conclude that they saw the crucifixion as morally right.

Is that what you meant? If so, the gap in their awareness was:

They did not know that it was wrong to_______________________________.

The way I see it, Jesus said “did not know what they are doing” versus “did not know that what they were doing was wrong.” The latter is a propositional knowing (the key word=“that”), the former is a more inclusive statement, encompassing all the “knowing” can be, i.e. and affective knowing, knowing the gravity of the sin in terms of the value of the person being tortured. The latter is a broader statement, inclusive of the propositional.

The reason I think the distinction is important is because it we can come to understand why people sin in light of this gap in knowledge people have. In addition, it is very natural to condemn people with “you should have known better!”, or “you knew that such act was wrong!” which does not lead seem to help the understanding aspect in forgiving from the heart.

Do people seek to destroy what they value? Do they know the gravity in terms of destroying something precious? These questions are part of an affective knowledge.

Thanks for you response!

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas

I’m not sure, yes we don’t know. We do know that people can change their minds, of course, so it doesn’t matter much. We only know that that the crowd and the leaders did not know what they were doing.

Hello.

Ok so for example, a person of faith for many years just one day decides to reject that faith would not have any idea of what they were doing? Is this a good example?

Some in the crowd may not have heard of Jesus until that time, others maybe a few years, welcome him in faith that he is the messiah, but then reject so easily…

Once confusion sets into our mind, we can make the wrong decisions, we see that even now.