L
Lapell
Guest
What is puzzling in what I had said in that post, prodigal-sun?
- Status
L
Lapell
Guest
Christianity is full of paradoxes, paarsurrey.
L
Lapell
Guest
Which may be similar to a contradiction in how it looks like but really is distinct and thus different.
P
planten
Guest
Take my honest opinion please. Some one has misled the christians into wrong beliefs. Jesus suffered on the cross. That is true. The early followers of Jesus suffered much under the foreign rule and under the influence of the misbehaving (fanatic) Jews.
The Jews took the responsiblity of the blood of Jesus (if bible is to be believed as a true book). Jesus was still a well known important Jew and so were all his followers at the time of the crucifixion. There were no christians available at that time. Even Mary was a an important Jewess.
It was all an inter Jewish struggle. It was all intended to reform the Jews and not to start a new faith. If you agree with me upto this point then please let me know. Then I will come back to you soon.
Then we may discuss the carrying of the Cross.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Belief in Jesus’ divinity (“Christianity” before it became known as such) was indeed an internal threat to Judaism, since Christianity grew out of a small community of Jews holding a view that was heretical to the leaders of the time (and still is now, I suppose, since Christians and Jews are separate communities now). You are right in this very limited respect.
Otherwise, I disagree with you strenuously. Whether or not God “intended” to start a new religion is not the right kind of question, I don’t think. Can we say God has “intentions”, and if He does, can we know them as He knows them? I really do not know. It is a strange question, and not one that I think is relevant to any religious conversation. “What would Jesus do” is a popular saying in the United States now. I think this is misguided. We don’t need to ask this. “Who is Jesus?” is better.
We know Jesus is the Son of God. We know what He did and said that was recorded in the Bible. The faith that grew out of who He IS and what He said and did is Christianity. Was it through intention that Christianity was formed? No. It was through the real encounters of the Apostles with the Son of God, the risen Christ!
Christianity is not a created conspiracy. It the experience of the Creator.
Otherwise, I disagree with you strenuously. Whether or not God “intended” to start a new religion is not the right kind of question, I don’t think. Can we say God has “intentions”, and if He does, can we know them as He knows them? I really do not know. It is a strange question, and not one that I think is relevant to any religious conversation. “What would Jesus do” is a popular saying in the United States now. I think this is misguided. We don’t need to ask this. “Who is Jesus?” is better.
We know Jesus is the Son of God. We know what He did and said that was recorded in the Bible. The faith that grew out of who He IS and what He said and did is Christianity. Was it through intention that Christianity was formed? No. It was through the real encounters of the Apostles with the Son of God, the risen Christ!
Christianity is not a created conspiracy. It the experience of the Creator.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
We all have to carry our own Crosses, so it is a good thing to look at Jesus Christ, who carried his cross for our salvation.
Jesus Christ is the Ulitmate role model that shows us how to carry our crosses with love.
Ufamtobie
J
jmcrae
Guest
Obviously, God (Jesus) intended to found a new religion, since He states so quite plainly in Matthew 16:18-19, when He is establishing Peter as the “Rock.” There is also a very long prayer that He prays, for His Church, in John 17, that takes up the whole chapter.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I am aware of this…I am trying to get Planten to think differently about this issue, and since I don’t think he takes the Bible seriously, I don’t think pointing to any verse will convince him of anything.
As to “intention”, I stand by my point. Whether or not you want to call it God’s “intention” to found the Church in the manner described by that verse is fine either way, to me. Jesus is FOUNDING the Church. He isn’t sitting around, as it seems like Planten would like us to consider, conspiring to found some Church on false doctrine. My point wasn’t that Christ did not found a new religion, but that the new religion that He DID found was through the gathering of believers in His own divinity - proven by His works and by His resurrection, He chose Peter as the first keeper of His VISIBLE Church, but from the point of view that Planten seems to be espousing, the Church went out of its way to contravene the “original” teachings of Jesus, so it becomes necessary in answering Planten’s claim to separate “the Church” (which existed after Christ’s founding of it upon the rock that is Peter) from existence of “the Religion” or, more properly, “the Faith”, which existed prior to this founding. I am trying to show Planten that Christianity is not comparable to Islam because Islam came with the declaration of a new religion (itself), whereas Christianity came with the belief in the Divinity of the Son of God - and AFTERWARDS a Church was founded on that belief. So it wasn’t as though there were teachings that were “original” and then the Church corrupted them - the Church was founded upon them, and they were founded in the experience of the people who lived alongside Christ. It’s experiential, not conspiratorial “after the fact” as Planten seems to think it was.
As to “intention”, I stand by my point. Whether or not you want to call it God’s “intention” to found the Church in the manner described by that verse is fine either way, to me. Jesus is FOUNDING the Church. He isn’t sitting around, as it seems like Planten would like us to consider, conspiring to found some Church on false doctrine. My point wasn’t that Christ did not found a new religion, but that the new religion that He DID found was through the gathering of believers in His own divinity - proven by His works and by His resurrection, He chose Peter as the first keeper of His VISIBLE Church, but from the point of view that Planten seems to be espousing, the Church went out of its way to contravene the “original” teachings of Jesus, so it becomes necessary in answering Planten’s claim to separate “the Church” (which existed after Christ’s founding of it upon the rock that is Peter) from existence of “the Religion” or, more properly, “the Faith”, which existed prior to this founding. I am trying to show Planten that Christianity is not comparable to Islam because Islam came with the declaration of a new religion (itself), whereas Christianity came with the belief in the Divinity of the Son of God - and AFTERWARDS a Church was founded on that belief. So it wasn’t as though there were teachings that were “original” and then the Church corrupted them - the Church was founded upon them, and they were founded in the experience of the people who lived alongside Christ. It’s experiential, not conspiratorial “after the fact” as Planten seems to think it was.
P
planten
Guest
dzhereme, I do take whatever is left of the bibleNT seriously. You please present anything from the bible, I will understand. But it should formally be something from Jesus only, not from others. If it is from others then show support to the words of others from the words of Jesus too. Thanks, Welcome.
**Please present the verses which show that Jesus built a church. Did he mention the church? I have heard about it but may not be able to find it in bibleNT. So you please present those verses which tell that Jesus built the church, on Rock.
Bring it from the four gospels please. But if not in the four gospels, even then give reference. I give priority to the four gospels only. That is the complete true descriptive of the 3 years life period of Jesus before he disappeared completely. Welcome
It appears that church was not there at all. There was no christianity and no church at the time of Jesus. They built the church on the experiential basis. What experience did paul have in those matters (teachings)???
**.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Matthew 16:18 says (it is Jesus speaking), And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I hope that satisfies all of your stated criteria.
L
Lapell
Guest
S
Soutane
Guest
Name some please.
P
planten
Guest
** jmcrae, Thanks. The word church is there in that verse. But it is such a short description of Jesus whole mission, just in a very few words which need to be understood. There are some parables in it too.
I will have to read mathew 16 and John 17 again to understand things. Thanks for your effort to guide me to the subject.**
E
Eucharisted
Guest
No problem. We gotta be careful how we speak, because everyone has preconceived notions of something, and in regards to the Catholic Church, we have to break those preconceived notions which are not true, such as the notion that Saint Paul corrupted Catholicism with Greek philosophy or some such. And we break preconceived notions not by force or profanity but by instruction and example, imitating our Lord Jesus Christ.Sooooorrrrreeeeee!I didn’t read your statement correctly! you are absolutely right and thank you for providing the proper perspective.
Respect Christianity. We Christians firmly believe - and whether or not you consider us wrong is irrelevent to what we believe - that Jesus embraced the Cross when He was sentenced to death. We are called to imitate Him in whose Image we are created and who became Man so that man might become like God, and so, we imitate the Lord by embracing the Cross as our banner and our power, as the paradox of our religion, and as the sign of our faith. This is why we suffer, this is why we grow in persecution and why the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and this is why we make the Sign of the Cross and have crucifixes on our bodies and in our churches and homes. To non-Christians, this seems foolish, for they do not understand the mysteries of our faith, but we who wish to lead them to the truth instruct them and pray for them. If you believe Jesus did not erect crosses, than perhaps you have not read that He was lifted up on the Cross? Or if you believe the behavior of Christians toward the Cross and toward crucifixes is sickening and blasmphemous, perhaps you have not read that Jesus saluted the Cross and took it when it was given to Him? You are judging what you percieve, not what you know, and it is for this reason that Catholic Answers exists: so that you might ask questions and get answers and so learn about Christianity, rather than clinging to what you percieve in us.
L
Lapell
Guest
Any two or more things that seem to be opposed or having apparently nothing to do with one another but really are complementary and helping define the whole picture.Name some please.
As for examples… that God is all-good and all-loving yet He allows suffering and death to exist ( we know, though, that it doesn’t stop there, otherwise there would be serious ground to rightfully cynical about Him. Looks do deceive, don’t they?
Another one? Jesus says He is is meek and humble of heart, yet it doesn’t keep Him from stating heavy reproaches to the Pharisees and the scribes, calling them hypocrites?
So maybe we should think again about what being ‘meek and humble of heart’ truly means…
Another one? One God, and three persons in God! This has been a stumbling block for many (the Jews and the Muslims, for instance)
Also, Jesus is the Good Shepherd, but He also is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and also the Lion of Judah… How can He be all this at the very same time?
Also He is called the son of David, and He calls Himself the Son of Man (after the Book of Daniel), and declares that God Almighty is His Father… How can it be?
And He is true God and true man, yet He is a divine person, not a human person, even though He did clothe Himself with the human nature, looks and acts like a man in every thing except that He never sinned.
Also, though He never sinned, saint Paul states that He made Himself sin for our salvation…
Shall I go on?
L
Lapell
Guest
Good to see I am not the only one poster from Canada, Soutane.
J
jmcrae
Guest
HEY, Calgary is also in Canada!
L
Lapell
Guest
Which is why they is an authority in the Catholic Church to guide us the faithful, because it would be so easy to interpret the verses of the Sacred Scriptures to fit our personal views. The Church ( Assembly of Jesus’ disciples) precedes the New Testament, you know! And there is not just the written Tradition, but also the oral Tradition… Don’t try to interpret it outside the authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium of the Church, you might come out with many frankly funny interpretations not in tune with the Spirit of God… as many have come with in the course of history, BTW!
L
Lapell
Guest
Sorry, jm, I never looked into your profile. I might have missed a few others also, so to them and to you, jmcrae, I apologize, but I am all the more happy to acknowledge your presence here! God bless you!!HEY, Calgary is also in Canada!
L
Lapell
Guest
planten, I should have come out with this long before, I guess.
You might not understand this one thing, but it certainly underlies the reaction of a number of us to some speculations on the meaning of certain biblical verses from some of you guys. I hope you can understand at least this, it would help a lot I think!
- Status