Words of Jesus

[Catholic_Dude]

1. the discourse in John Chapter 6 probably never took place since Jesus would never have discussed the Eucharistic doctrine prior to its institution.

False. That is more modernist-liberalist garbage condemned by the Church.

1. The events where Jesus walks on water were merely a way for the evangelists to convey that Jesus is truly God since this is how it was seen in the Old Testament where God walks on water.

See above.

1. Luke 24: the Road to Emmaus account is a liturgical event and probably never really occurred but was written to give the sense of the Mass and its importance.

See above.

These are all part of a modernist/liberal agenda to undermine the faith by casting doubts and even outright denying traditional and Scriptural teachings of the faith.

The presenter also commented on how silly it is that the Protestants carry Bibles that have Jesus’ words in red since He probably never spoke some of them and the rest were definitely not accurate.

The presenter is a moron, plain and simple. He is a brainwashed fool that cant think for himself and is simply parroting what his liberal ‘professors’ indoctrinated him with.

So, anyway, how far do we take this?

You don’t take it ‘far’ at all because these are “teachings” EXPRESSLY condemned by the Church and Popes like St Pius X.

At what point do we just accept that perhaps Jesus really did do and say the things that the Gospels mention?

The Church teaches the Bible is wholly inspired and free from error, that includes free of anything that would be considered a lie (eg recording words or actions which Jesus never really said).

Or, let’s say in fifty years are we going to find that the Historical- Criticism Method is all wet and find another way to interpret the Gospels?

It’s been ‘all wet’ from the very start, yet liberal scholars have pushed it to the popularity it never deserved. It is a self-destructive and brain damaged method of interpretation that leaves the individual believing doctrines and teachings which the individual just got though debunking as false/myth.

I’m not stirring the pot here. I’m just really confused as to how far can we go…teachccd

All those things are condemned by the Church under the umbrella of Modernism. Don’t believe these ‘experts’ when they are going against the plain teachings of the Church. They are only ‘experts’ because they parroted the same errors of their ‘professors’.

 

[teachccd]

False. That is more modernist-liberalist garbage condemned by the Church.

See above.

See above.

These are all part of a modernist/liberal agenda to undermine the faith by casting doubts and even outright denying traditional and Scriptural teachings of the faith.

The presenter is a moron, plain and simple. He is a brainwashed fool that cant think for himself and is simply parroting what his liberal ‘professors’ indoctrinated him with.

You don’t take it ‘far’ at all because these are “teachings” EXPRESSLY condemned by the Church and Popes like St Pius X.

The Church teaches the Bible is wholly inspired and free from error, that includes free of anything that would be considered a lie (eg recording words or actions which Jesus never really said).

It’s been ‘all wet’ from the very start, yet liberal scholars have pushed it to the popularity it never deserved. It is a self-destructive and brain damaged method of interpretation that leaves the individual believing doctrines and teachings which the individual just got though debunking as false/myth.

All those things are condemned by the Church under the umbrella of Modernism. Don’t believe these ‘experts’ when they are going against the plain teachings of the Church. They are only ‘experts’ because they parroted the same errors of their ‘professors’.

Thank you…

 

[jcrichton]

Now, let me expound on some of what I was told that day that promted my original post. 1) the discourse in John Chapter 6 probably never took place since Jesus would never have discussed the eucharistic doctrine prior to its institution. 2) The events where Jesus walks on water were merely a way for the evangelists to convey that Jesus is truly God since this is how it was seen in the Old Testament where God walks on water. 3) Luke 24: the Road to Emmaus account is a liturgical event and probably never really occurred but was written to give the sense of the Mass and its importance.

The presenter also commented on how silly it is that the Protestants carry Bibles that have Jesus’ words in red since He probably never spoke some of them and the rest were definitely not accurate.

So, anyway, how far do we take this? At what point do we just accept that perhaps Jesus really did do and say the things that the Gospels mention? Or, let’s say in fifty years are we going to find that the Historical- Criticism Method is all wet and find another way to interpret the Gospels?

I’m not stirring the pot here. I’m just really confused as to how far can we go…teachccd

*This is a simple issue.

Are you a Believer?

Are you asking Believers to accept anti-Christian teachings/beliefs?

Is there a compilation of man’s total historical account?

Is the Bible presented as a historical archieve?

Simple Example*:
Some have a very difficult time with the Christian celebration of Christmas. I’ve encountered some (both on-line and in person) that desire to remove Dec. 25 as Christ’s birth date. Are these people truly concerned with the proper historical account? Are they truly interested in maintaining historical purity?

When faced with simple challenges their arguments become undone.

It is the same for those who claim to be able to accurately determine what is true or false about the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Their arguments are void because they make themselves the authority over the object of their rejection and they ignore that their beliefs are based on personal suppositions and the rejection of nearly two thousand years of Church History.

They seek to liberate Christians from the burnden the Church has placed on them by facilitating disobedience and espousing them to immorality and heresy.

They have removed the Holy Spirit from the Church and have determined what God “really” meant to convey. They subscribe to hollowood’s theology and are bent on restructuring the Church of Christ in their own image.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

There is no real historical evidence for the resurrection whatsoever. There are no resurrection stories. The appearance stories we have are confused and contradictory accounts given only third hand and only attributed to people who already knew Jesus and were part of the “in group”. There are no independent accounts or witnesses or any other documentation. If there was a shred of real “Historical” evidence, why hasn’t a single historian mentioned that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago?

The possibility that a few followers were martyred for preaching the teachings of Jesus is no proof at all.

You must be kidding - the words were spoken in Aramaic, recorded in the gospels in Greek long after they were spoken, and then translated to our languages AND we don’t have any of the original texts!!! What strange sort of logic is there that insists we have anything like the exact actual words of Christ???

Are you truly that naive? When has there been an “independent lens” trained on the Truth? Do you also believe that president elect, Obama, truly arose from anonymity due to his brilliant “x,” “y” or “z?”

Ever watch/hear news reports where Catholic theology is supported or at least not attacked?

If today’s “learned” people are openly hostile to the Church, what makes you think that past anti-Christians would be honest enough to “report/record” any Truth?

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[jcrichton]

None of what I said was personal opinion:

• Unless you have an original gospel written in Aramaic, you can’t have the actual exact words of Jesus.
• If no historian has written a history text stating that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, there isn’t convincing historical evidence of this event. We may undeniably believe it is a fact, but that is a statement of faith.
• If you still think we have the exact actual words of Jesus, don’t believe me, read the church’s documentation in ***the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI.

*Are you aware of what you are claiming?

…you are claiming that somehow there are actual archieves that contain the original manuscripts (scrolls) written over nearly two thousand years ago…

Your premise is wrong on two important accounts:

1. Time erodes things (including metals), and
2. The original scrolls were copied to deter: a) physical erosion, b) facilitate the Sacred Writings to the various communities, and c) preservation–man has known from of old that to eradicate a people/nation one must eradicate both their cultural and religious identities.

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[jcrichton]

Please remember there was no written Christian tradition in the time of Christ, that is, no New Testament. Followers began to document various aspects of the ‘Jesus Experience’ later, and in the 4th Century, it was the *Catholic Church *that decided which of those documents – and there were many – would meet the criteria for inclusion in the New Testament. Many did not make the cut.

Yes…the presenter is right, I’m afraid. This is yet another reason why isolating the Bible as a ‘stand-alone’ Christian authority, is a bad idea. It simply didn’t come into existence in that context. The Church came first, then the Bible.

Yet, the presenter is not interested in the Sacred Tradition (Oral Teaching of the Church)–he is bent on deconstructing the New Testament and presenting a man, perhaps somehow extraordinary, but never an Incarnated God!

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Are you truly that naive? When has there been an “independent lens” trained on the Truth? Do you also believe that president elect, Obama, truly arose from anonymity due to his brilliant “x,” “y” or “z?”

Ever watch/hear news reports where Catholic theology is supported or at least not attacked?

If today’s “learned” people are openly hostile to the Church, what makes you think that past anti-Christians would be honest enough to “report/record” any Truth?

Maran atha!

Angel*

Yet, the presenter is not interested in the Sacred Tradition (Oral Teaching of the Church)–he is bent on deconstructing the New Testament and presenting a man, perhaps somehow extraordinary, but never an Incarnated God!

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[bilop]

None of what I said was personal opinion:

• Unless you have an original gospel written in Aramaic, you can’t have the actual exact words of Jesus.
• If no historian has written a history text stating that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, there isn’t convincing historical evidence of this event. We may undeniably believe it is a fact, but that is a statement of faith.
• If you still think we have the exact actual words of Jesus, don’t believe me, read the church’s documentation in ***the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI.

At least 3 of the 4 Gospels were originally written in Greek, as well as all of the Acts, Epistles and Revelation. Greek was the language of the eastern Empire, and of the hellenized Jews. Jesus probably spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, depending on the audience, but the NT was a Greek document, and surviving versions of the Greek text exist from very early on.

The NT was written within 70 years after the death of Christ by disciples who had first or second hand knowledge of the events. They are the historians that recorded his Resurrection.

Why do you believe Herodotus, and Tacitus and Livy, writing tens and hundreds of years after the fact about history, but not the Apostles?

After all, the Apostles suffered torture and death for asserting the truth of their teachings and writings, but did not recant. Not too many other historians have faced, and passed that test of veracity.

God Bless

 

[teachccd]

At least 3 of the 4 Gospels were originally written in Greek, as well as all of the Acts, Epistles and Revelation. Greek was the language of the eastern Empire, and of the hellenized Jews. Jesus probably spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, depending on the audience, but the NT was a Greek document, and surviving versions of the Greek text exist from very early on.

The NT was written within 70 years after the death of Christ by disciples who had first or second hand knowledge of the events. They are the historians that recorded his Resurrection.

Why do you believe Herodotus, and Tacitus and Livy, writing tens and hundreds of years after the fact about history, but not the Apostles?

After all, the Apostles suffered torture and death for asserting the truth of their teachings and writings, but did not recant. Not too many other historians have faced, and passed that test of veracity.

God Bless

I have to agree. Why are these modernists so arrogant as to dismiss what has been taught for centuries in lieu of their hypothetical “discoveries”? Like the “Q” source, for example. They teach it like fact but have no basis for this theory. Again, I can understand that the Gospels were written years later but to deny the actual text and their historicity is absolutely a disgrace.

Call me stupid or naive but then you’d have to give 1900 years of theology the same title.

Bilop, thank you for making sense out of this and pray for all of those who attend seminary or Catholic Universities since this is what they are learning…God Bless…teachccd

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why do you believe Herodotus, and Tacitus and Livy, writing tens and hundreds of years after the fact about history, but not the Apostles?

After all, the Apostles suffered torture and death for asserting the truth of their teachings and writings, but did not recant. Not too many other historians have faced, and passed that test of veracity.

God Bless

Because he (unknowingly) embraces the error of many scholars today called the Historical-Critical method. The HC method is BUILT upon the Modernist-Liberal presumptive notion that the supernatural does not exist and thus any books containing miracles and such are myth or figurative.

Because the Bible contains miracles and such, the HC method states these are either outright myth, figurative, or general “happy thoughts” of encouragement. These must be stripped from the Bible when “analyzing” it and interpreting it, but as you know the Bible is stripped of many important details which make the overall message garbage. On top of that, the Bible should not be used as a historical text, and instead “true” historical accounts by those of pagans should be given preference. With this, anything in the Bible which disagrees or not mentioned in ‘secular historical accounts’ is to be doubted or tossed.

If it cannot be explained by science, if it doesn’t have other 3rd party ‘objective’ historical records to match, and if it doesnt sound probable, then it should be thrown out of the Bible. That is the total bankrupsy and disaster of the H-C method, which leaves educated men affirming Scripture all the while totally undermining it and calling it a myth, fantasy, cut and paste, etc.

It is a sad thing to see.

 

[Ruthie]

I feel sorry for the kind of person that led that workshop, ccd. They don’t believe in miracles, so they undermine any accounts of miracles, in order to support their belief that there are no miracles.

Or perhaps they are afraid to believe in miracles, because that would mean they have to believe in God! Or maybe they’re afraid to learn that they are not Him.

How sad. I live surrounded by miracles - like the Eucharist.

A good many miracles can be explained by science - like how flowers blossom. Some can’t, like spontaneous remission, and the Resurrection.

But there’s one thing about miracles that science will *never *be able to explain - and that is, “Because, why?”

Because God.

To Him be the glory,

Ruthie

 

[zach_dunn]

I have a question…

Why would the Holy Spirit inspire the authors of the NT to make up what Jesus said. If the teachings are the same, why would God Himself inspire people to make up what He said what’s wrong with His exact words? Nothing.

Also, did this person say no one knows what Jesus looked like? I thought there was the Shroud of Toran and Veronica’s Vail.

 

[teachccd]

I have a question…

Why would the Holy Spirit inspire the authors of the NT to make up what Jesus said. If the teachings are the same, why would God Himself inspire people to make up what He said what’s wrong with His exact words? Nothing.

Yes. I would have to agree.

Also, did this person say no one knows what Jesus looked like? I thought there was the Shroud of Toran and Veronica’s Vail.

No. He never mentioned anything concerning how Jesus may have looked. But I don’t think that I would have gone there with him. It was hard enough with what we do have concerning the Gospels…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

I feel sorry for the kind of person that led that workshop, ccd. They don’t believe in miracles, so they undermine any accounts of miracles, in order to support their belief that there are no miracles.

Or perhaps they are afraid to believe in miracles, because that would mean they have to believe in God! Or maybe they’re afraid to learn that they are not Him.

How sad. I live surrounded by miracles - like the Eucharist.

A good many miracles can be explained by science - like how flowers blossom. Some can’t, like spontaneous remission, and the Resurrection.

But there’s one thing about miracles that science will *never *be able to explain - and that is, “Because, why?”

Because God.

To Him be the glory,

Ruthie

Ruthie, I have no doubt that this professor believes in God. And I know that he believes in Jesus Christ and all of the essentials of our faith. But in his rationalizing the Historical -Critical method of biblical interpretation he subscribes to modern scholastic renderings of who Jesus is. You’d almost have to experience this type of contemporary theology to really grasp at what is going on here. The sad part is that this is being taught in Catholic Universities and in seminary. I spoke with a priest who is a fairly recent seminary graduate and he agreed that this is the way of the future. He told me to stick with the CCC and other Church documents and to continue to teach in the traditional ways that was good for 1900 years. I’m not burying my head in the sand but I’m also not going to stick my neck out on the chopping block.

I know that Jesus is fully capable of multiplying loaves of bread and walking on water. So that is what I teach. Should anyone challenge me then I would place the burden of proof on them to say otherwise…God Bless…teachccd