The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 139

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | sinkspur

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Threads 1-99

Thread 100	Thread 101	Thread 102	Thread 103	Thread 104	Thread 105	Thread 106	Thread 107
Thread 108	Thread 109	Thread 110	Thread 111	Thread 112	Thread 113	Thread 114	Thread 115
Thread 116	Thread 117	Thread 118	Thread 119	Thread 120	Thread 121	Thread 122	Thread 123
Thread 124	Thread 125	Thread 126	Thread 127	Thread 128	Thread 129	Thread 130	Thread 131
Thread 132	Thread 133	Thread 134	Thread 135	Thread 136	Thread 137

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 138

[apologist]

Animals have no soul.

Offbeat question - how do we know for sure?

[malakhi]

I'd pick this one. If by "born into the faith" you mean a child is merely raised by parents to attend a certain church, I think that's largely meaningless. We all must personally "convert", of our own will, regardless of what mom and dad say we are.

I agree.

[malakhi]

If God is just, the penalty would fit the crime, no? He may see the crime in a different light than we do...

"An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth." The penalty must be proportional to the crime.

[trad_anglican]

It was not a necessity. There was a debt to be paid. God could have written off the debt, but because he is just, he wanted the debt paid.

But how could the debt be paid without an offering? With no offering you have a write-off, not a payment. The debt was paid through Jesus' death. I don't see any injustice in that because Jesus was God. So God paid the debt for us out of his own pocket, so to speak. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.

Jesus was also a man. His death and resurrection opened the door for our resurrection following our death.

How could either of these things have happened without Jesus' death?

[SoothingDave]

Maybe soul was the wrong word. But actually that is something I was taught in catholic schools. The difference between animals and humans is humans have a soul. But what I am speaking of is that man was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) animals wern't. I'm speaking of the difference between man and animal.

I think "soul," unmodified is the wrong word. Animals obviously have souls, in that they are animated. People have immortal souls, souls destined for an eternity, hopefully one with God.

Of course this involves two closely related concepts, and as they are more or less synonymous we should just abandon the attempt to make distinctions. Right?

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

hello Dave.

[SoothingDave]

This is SO very common that I wonder why the Catholic Church doesn't (at least to my limited knowledge) take corrective action.

This is exactly what I have been asking here for the last two days about the misunderstanding that surrounds the issue of rather or not catholics worship Mary. Everyone here says they don't, but the actions of the church suggest otherwise. If Mary is not to be worshipped why doesn't the church come out ans say so plainly instead of using words like venerate in the catechism, which is very close to the same thing as worship. It is such a common illuison among people that I would think the church would want to clear it up. Since they don't I can only surmise that worshipping Mary is what they intended to begen with but the people here just don't go along with it.

Becky, you have been going on like this for several days. You are convinced that the Church truly teaches the worship of Mary. That we tell you it is not so makes not a whit of difference. Popular perception rules and you will not be swayed by the constant re-iteration of our teaching. This is largely why your pleas have gone unanswered.

You blame the leaders of the Church for not "clearing up" your own misconception. And that, sadly, of many of the ignorant Catholics you know.

The Church has "cleared this up." You just don't recognize it because you wish to run to a dictionary and deduce the meaning of the words used instead of using the words as the Church intends. Theology, like any detailed human endeavour, requires a precise definition of terms before even beginning to embark on a conversation. That you dsmiss the carefully chosen words "worship" and "venerate" (actually "latria" and "dulia") as "synonyms" is to refuse to enter the conversation. You refuse the definitions given for the words and choose to equate words to remove a distinction which is being made.

And then you blame the Church for not being clear.

Sadly this all seems to stem from the fact that you recognize dulia (flowers and songs) as worship (because as a Protestant it's all you have), but are completely blind to the latria of the Mass.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Hey Steven -- I had been visiting lovely Cincinnati. I did go to the world famous Montgomery Inn for the "World's Greatest" Ribs. So it wasn't a complete loss.

Who're the Broncos playing this week?

SD

[malakhi]

Hi Dave. Welcome back!

[AlguyA]

PLEASE, EVERYONE READ THIS

(I know it's a bit long, but please give it your consideration.)

On the previous thread, angelo pointed out a seeming contradiction in the New Testament. The Gospels say that Joseph of Arimathea laid Jesus in the tomb. St. Paul in Acts, however, says it was "they" -the rulers of Jerusalem- who laid Jesus in the tomb.

Becky offered a solution to this seeming contradiction which I believe is right -but only PARTIALLY right. And as is often the case, if we walk away from this discussion convinced only of a partial truth we run the risk of error by not seeing the whole Truth which I believe Scripture can teach us on the point.

Here is Becky's solution to the contradiction: Acts says "they" -the rulers in Jerusalem- laid Jesus in His tomb. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin who were the 'rulers of Jerusalem' ipso facto it was 'they' who laid Him in His tomb. Problem solved, contradiction explained, let's all go eat lunch. As angelo notes, 'this makes sense.' (Although I still suspect angelo may believe his initial theory that Paul had not heard the story of Joseph's role and this explains the contradiction but is just willing to 'move on.') But I have a real problem with this formulation. You see, when I read the Gospel accounts I get the impression Joseph is acting in CONTRAVENTION of the wishes of the Sanhedrin. I know this isn't stated explicitly. Yet, isn't one of the reasons Christians have always honored Joseph was that he -unlike the majority of the Sanhedrin- believed in Jesus? Don't we honor him precisely because we see in this act -in going to Pilate- Joseph commiting a charitable act, going against 'the crowds,' and seeking to treat Jesus' Body with some modicum of respect? Yet, Becky's solution seems to have Joseph acting at the BEHEST of the Sanhedrin.

Thus, I would object to Becky's solution for this reason. Her solution in a very real sense robs from Joseph that which makes his act charitable -his willingness to defy the majority. But this is not the only reason, nor is it the main reason I object to it. The main reason I object to it is:

IT ALLOWS PILATE TO GET AWAY WITH IT!

It allows Pilate to 'wash his hands' of the whole affair. It deemphasizes and in a very real sense virtually eliminates Pilate's role in the whole affair.

Let me back up a minute. As readers may be able to discern, this is not the first time I have considered this issue. I believe the question of 'who laid Jesus in his tomb' is DIRECTLY related to the question of who was responsible for Jesus' death in the first place. If we accept Becky's solution to the seeming contradiction over who laid Jesus in the tomb then we are led to Becky's conclusion which she boldly and baldly states on the previous thread:

"The people who had him killed were the people who laid him in the tomb. The Jews!"

Becky, this is true -as far as it goes. Moreover, I am not at all saying that what I am about to say applies to you personally. Frankly, I strongly suspect when you've finished reading what I'm writing you'll agree with my at least my next points and maybe even many of the points I'm about to make. You were answering a specific issue in the limited space and time under which we all operate and, hence, I want to make very clear to both the reader and to you that I believe when I'm finished you will say, "well, of course, I agree with everything you've said."

Now, here's my problem with your formulation. If we stop our consideration of this seeming contradiction with the result that we believe: 'it was those who had him killed who laid him in the tomb, the Jews,' then far too often over the course of history far too many Christians have taken the next small step and concluded: 'it was the Jews who killed Jesus.'

To this, every Christian is required to respond with a resounding: NO. Whenever this subject comes up, Christians should be bound to explicitly and forthrightly declare that while the Jews may have been complicit in the Death of Jesus, while they may have agitated for it, it was Pilate, and by extension, pagan Rome who had the power, the authority, to put Jesus to death and, thus, pagan Rome is at least as responsible for Jesus' death as are the Jews. History and morality demand no less. We MUST NOT let Pilate 'get away with it.'

Yet, even this should not satisfy us. Even the recognition that while the Jews may have 'had Jesus killed' but it was the Romans who killed him should not satisfy us. You want to know who 'laid Jesus in the tomb?' You want to know who 'had him killed?' You want to know who actually killed him?

I did.

And Becky did. And allend did. And angelo did. And so did every other poster on this forum. Every time we think to ourselves, 'it was the Jews who had Jesus killed' we should immediately also say, 'but, of course, it was really I who did.' And we should do so for two reasons.

First, history. Becky lately has been demanding the Catholic Church make strenuous efforts in the area of teaching the world that Catholics should not worship Mary. But you know something? When I look at history, I don't see alot of people being murdered because they were worshipping Mary rather than venerating Her.

I do, however, see alot of people being murdered -i.e. Jews- because people bought the notion it was the Jews who had Jesus killed and then took it a step further and viewed Jews as 'Christ-killers.' Thus, where we really need to educate Christians -both Protestants and Catholics alike- where we really need to focus our efforts is on convincing people it was, ultimately, not the Jews who had Jesus killed, but each and every one of us. We're the ones ultimately responsible.

Second, we should recognize it is we who laid Jesus in the tomb and had him killed because, well, that's really the whole Gospel message isn't it? If we stop with the formulation that the 'Jews had Jesus killed,' don't we run the risk of sort of letting ourselves off the hook? Don't we run the risk of perhaps saying to ourselves, at least at some level of our thinking, 'hey, sure Jesus had to die on the Cross for me, but it's not like I'm the one who killed him,' and, in so doing, actually deny Who He is?

Of course, these are theological considerations and I realize the discussion is historical and that even now many readers may be saying, "O.K., smart guy, you don't like Becky's solution, so what's yours? We all agree ultimately we're responsible but how do you square the seeming contradiction of the Gospels which say nothing about any role for the Sanhedrin, itself, in the burial of Jesus and seems to stress Joseph acting as an individual with Paul in Acts who claims it was 'the rulers' who laid him in his tomb"

Well, I have two answers -one of which I find very disatisfying and one of which will make me sound crazy. Wishing to postpone just a little bit longer appearing weird to the reader, let me start with the dissatisfying answer.

Put simply, something along the lines offered by angelo, Becky, and others. It may be, as I believe angelo has jokingly suggested, that Paul had not heard of the story of Joseph or his role in the burial and thus didn't cite it in his preaching. It may also be Paul was simply abbreviating his discussion of Jesus' burial, thinking to himself, 'well, Joseph was a ruler, my speech is running long, I'll just abbreviate the whole thing. This is sort of what Becky is arguing. In other words, this is really no big deal as others have suggested. A bit of sloppiness the result of human agency in the writing of Scripture. This would be my answer. As I've stated, I believe Becky is right -but only partially. And I'll even qualify that last part by saying what I am about to say is pure speculation. But here goes.

What if that contradiction is there on purpose? I know this will sound superstitious, pre-modern, medieval, but what if the Holy Spirit purposefully allowed this seeming contradiction in to allow a larger truth to emerge. There is evidence to suggest this, believe it or not. Evidence provided, ironically, by angelo in a very recent post(and thank you, angelo, when I signed off yesterday, I was prepared to make this argument myself. I logged on this morning and found you had already made it for me. It's always helpful when one can cite another to at least partially support his contention.) In this recent post, angelo noted the Gospel writers had cause to portray the Jews in a 'negative light.' Indeed, I believe he mentioned John in this regard. So, then, in relating the story of Jesus' burial why didn't John take the opportunity to highlight the role of the Sanhedrin in Jesus' burial. When Paul does it, it definetly seems to strengthen the impression the Jews were responsible for Jesus death. Instead, John, who we agree had cause to portray the Jews in a negative light, seems to lay the blame squarely on Pilate and doesn't even mention the Jewish rulers -other than Joseph's- role in the burial. Why?

Well, the short answer is, John was an honest guy. He was familiar with the details of event and honestly related those details. Moreover, I believe we can all agree that whenever we act honestly, it is a result of God's grace. We are either cooperating with God's grace or we are acting at the behest of God's grace(can we just agree to avoid a Calvinism argument here). The point is, can we agree John's account was the result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I think we can all agree to this.

But, then, what about Paul's account? Should we say he was less "inspired" than John? Should we say he was less protected from error than was John? Or worse, should we consider the possibility that, unlike John, he Paul caved to the temptation to portray the Jews in a negative light? I have to tell you, in this instance, in this rendering of the account of the burial of Jesus, I'm loathe to accept any or all three of these above options. We do this, and before long we've got our own little 'Jesus Seminar' going on here at Free Republic.

So, then, what's the option? To accept both, seemingly contradictory, accounts as true? I would assert, "yes," that at a more fundamental level both are true and these seemingly contradictory accounts of Jesus' burial were purposely inspired by the Holy Spirit. (Actually, I won't assert it, really, this is all speculation but I will present said speculation in the form of an argument for ease of exposition.)

To begin. What is the most natural of human reactions when confronted with a mess? A mother walks into the kitchen, sees milk spilled all over the floor.and what does she yell? She yells, "Who did this? Confronted with a mess, the natural tendency is to find out whose responsible.

Well, when we confront Jesus on the Cross, it's a pretty big mess, right? One which, as I state above, we ultimately created.

Now, suppose we only had the Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial and that Paul in Acts had simply reiterated detail for detail the Gospel account. Now, isn't it pretty clear who -at least historically- was responsible for Jesus' death? It's Pilate He's the one with control of the body. He's the one to whom Joseph goes to get control of the body. Hence, he's the one who made the mess. My argument is that if the Bible only presented the Gospel account throughout, it would be much easier, much more likely, to lay the blame on Pilate. As, in fact, I somewhat do above.

Similarly, what if we only had Paul's account. In other words, what if John and the synoptics also portrayed the burial of Jesus as being done solely at the hands of the Jews and totally left Pilate out. Then we'd blame the Jews, right? In either case, I would argue we would be more likely to assign blame to either Pilate or the Jews. In so doing, we would be less likely to arrive at the consideration of the fact that, no, it is we who ultimately are to blame. As I have above.

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying that contradiction is there precisely to get us to pause so that we would conisider the burial of Jesus and arrive at the conclusion I have reached, that it is I who laid Jesus in that tomb.

This also plays out on another level -that of sin. Again, imagine this contradiction didn't exist and we had the Gospel account only which seems to pin blame on Pilate. Now, what was Pilate's sin? It was a sin of ommission. So how long would it be, if we only had this account, before Man would conclude sins of ommission were worse than sins of commission since it was a sin of ommission which led to Jesus' death on the Cross? Similarly, if the New Testament accounts had the Jews solely responsible, how long before Man concluded sins of commision (which was the Jewish leaders' sin) were worse than sins of ommission?

Thus, I would argue the Holy Spirit purposefully inspired this seeming contradiction so that we would know it was Pilate, acting through Joseph, who laid Jesus in his tomb and, at the very same time, it was the Jewish leaders, acting through Joseph, who laid Jesus in his tomb. Both are true. And both are there so that we may a)at least pause and ask the question, "who laid Joseph in the tomb" so that we could get to the answer that, "we did," Gentile(Pilate) and Jew (the Sanhedrin)alike ;" and b) so that we could recognize it was both a sin of ommission and both a sin of commission which laid Jesus in his tomb.

Well, there you have it folks. What do you think?

[SoothingDave]

Reaching way back to Thread 134, post 53:

I am trying to get at what you mean when you say "Jesus was indwelt by the Spirit of God." Would you say that you yourself are "indwelt by the Spirit of God"? Apart from the circumstances of your birth. Is your "indwelling" the same as His?

Is God different than God? Is God's spirit different than God's spirit. Are Father, Son and Holy Spirit different or are they one in the same? Are not Christians called also "sons of God"? If a man call forth three hirelings and give them each an ounce of Gold - to whom did he pay more? And if the three spend the gold on different things, which one was more powerful? Did they not all recieve the same amount of Gold? Did the Gold not Give each of them equal authority? Yet Jesus said "Greater things shall ye do, for I go to the Father." He left and sent His spirit Back.

Here is a Riddle. One becomes two in spirit and flesh, in absence, still two, does spirit make three? Trinity or twain? Remove the Man, yet one remains. Is Trinity three or one in three names. If you don't understand this, how can you know God?

I'm not sure what you are saying in your riddle, you'll have to unwrap it for me.

But I am taking the rest of your response to say that your indwelling is the same as that of Jesus. This I can not let stand without comment.

Jesus was God. (is God, was God, always God)

He was divine.

I am not divine. You are not divine. By saying that Jesus was indwelt by the Holy Spirit in the exact way that all Christians are is to make Jesus not divine.

Or to make all of us divine.

Which is it? Was Jesus not God, or are we all God?

SD

[FightThePower!]

I am so sick of this thread. Please let it go away.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Right on. Especially the part about all of us responsible for crucifying Jesus. After all, he died for all of us.

[SoothingDave]

Hey. So when you go to a Packers game what are you throwing on the grill? Bratwurst?

McDonald's around here has started selling brats. I figure within ten years they'll stumble upon Pittsburgh-favorite kielbasa. With or without kraut.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

If you go away first, we'll all eventually follow. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Hey Steven -- I had been visiting lovely Cincinnati. I did go to the world famous Montgomery Inn for the "World's Greatest" Ribs.

Cool. But I'd bet you'd get an argument from those who hail from KC.

Who're the Broncos playing this week?

The New York football Giants on ABC's Monday Night Football. 1st regular season game at the new state of the art "Invesco Field". Welcome back.

[RobbyS]

It may be a false memory but I seem to recall it was like waking from a dream.

[pegleg]

I am so sick of this thread. Please let it go away.

Please identify the person holding a gun to your head forcing you to lurk here and we will take corrective action.

[SoothingDave]

Well, there you have it folks. What do you think?

I think the point is driven home on Passion Sunday and Good Friday when the Passion is read and the congregation (in the role of "the crowd") speaks out "Crucify Him!" "We Want Barrabas!" and, mockingly "All Hail, King of the Jews!"

If that doesn't make you understand who is responsible, if saying those kinds of things in Church doesn't make you think, then I can't help you.

(There has been some movement lately to have the part of the "crowd" to be voiced by a single actor, supposedly in sensitivity to our Jewish friends who used to suffer on these days. When ignorant masses would go out looking for "Christ killers." To me, taking thoses words "Crucify Him" out of my mouth is to miss the whole point of the Passion.)

SD