Naturally. The search for the "Real" Jesus continues. Do you realize that EVERYONE says what you are? Jehovah Witnesses, Unitarians, Docetists, Arians, and any other group of people looking at the Book? We ALL have our perceptions of what God is trying to say... None of us were there, so, as all good scholars do, we make God into our own ideas and thoughts of Whom He is and what He has revealed.
To me, the plain meaning of this, without ANY background, would be clear. It would take a serious twisting of interpretation to change the meaning of these words. I am surprised you tried to make this point.
Again, you should read up more on Christian heresies. The Docetists say that Christ merely "pretended" to die. There is very little discussion on the agony of Christ - almost as if He was silent on the cross. The Gnostics have various different explanations as well. THEY say that God COULD NOT die on the cross. It was a substitution of Judas Iscariot or Simon the Cyrenean. The Muslims ALSO say the same thing - God didn't die on the cross. EVERYONE, including you, has a paradigm that they approach Scriptures with. These people don't think that God could suffer and die, so any "clear" Scripture is obviously a spiritual, not literal meaning. It is the Catholic faith that you draw the majority of your paradigms from.
I disagree. The only way to get to secret knowledge or anything else extra-Biblical is to build it in artificially.
Baloney. Who said that everything must be written down for it to be official? You are too enamoured with the US Justice system, I think. Much of the Jewish Scripture is based on oral traditions passed down CENTURIES until they were written down. Many of our ancient manuscripts of history or biographies are written hundreds of years AFTER the fact. Much of our information that we have is based on traditions passed down orally at least for some period of time - often for generations. Did you learn to eat by reading a book? Do you think people 1500 years ago learned by reading books? Or that they were overly concerned with written material?
I don't think the Gnostics thought that knowledge and belief were the same thing, at least to how we use the terms. I just implied in a recent post to you that some of the Pygmies will be saved without any formal knowledge. What would the Gnostics say to that? :)
You are probably correct. However, faith in something comes from knowledge. And it also depends on what kind of knowledge we are talking about. For example, when Paul talks about "knowing" the Lord, he is not discussing "book" knowledge, but experiential knowledge attained from a personal relationship. Thus, the Book is not needed absolutely for such experiences. We can come to know Christ WITHOUT a book in this manner. The Gnostic's concept of knowledge was based on God's secret revelation to them alone. The Catholic concept of knowledge was that ALL had this knowledge of experiencing Christ available to them - IF they turn from sin and place their faith in Him. What would the Gnostics say about the Pygmies? Perhaps they would agree. It would depend on the Pygmies knowledge meshing with the Gnostics view on the cosmic reality around them.
I figured I had a shot at a match with Augustine, but I didn't know about Aquinas. Thanks. :)
Catholics are taught that the elect are predestined irrestistibly by God. He actively brings His elect to Him WITHOUT overriding their will. This is an important thing to keep in balance - both realities must be maintained. But God does NOT actively choose people for perdition. Man does that on his own despite the efforts that God makes. Yes, man CAN and DOES refuse God. And God's wrath to them is shown in Romans 1:18-28. This is the basics on Catholic teaching on predestination. There is a lot of room for speculation within these parameters.
Regards
Do you realize that EVERYONE says what you are? Jehovah Witnesses, Unitarians, Docetists, Arians, and any other group of people looking at the Book? We ALL have our perceptions of what God is trying to say...
Yes, I would expect everyone to say what I am saying. Part of it comes down to what "plain meaning" really means. I know what I think it means, and am very comfortable with that position. Other persons or organizations will have to decide that for themselves.
These people [various heretics] don't think that God could suffer and die, so any "clear" Scripture is obviously a spiritual, not literal meaning. It is the Catholic faith that you draw the majority of your paradigms from.
In this case I'll take it because Catholics are right about whether Jesus suffered and died on the cross. In addition, that also happens to be exactly what the text says happened. You could line up a hundred third graders, read them the "death" verses, and then ask them what they thought happened. Virtually all, if not all, would say that Jesus died.
Who said that everything must be written down for it to be official?
Generically, I suppose no one. When the boss gives an oral order, it's official! However, I don't see the Roman Catholic Church as my boss, so I don't see its oral orders as official. Written orders, though, are better because they better stand the test of time. Luke agrees with me with the first words of his Gospel. He said that he was writing so that the audience could be CERTAIN.
Many of our ancient manuscripts of history or biographies are written hundreds of years AFTER the fact.
That's right, which is one reason I find the Bible to be much more reliable.
Do you think people 1500 years ago learned by reading books?
No, during all of those years everyone was dependent on fallible men to relay the scriptures. Just by the laws of mathematics, you must agree that heresies were taught by individual clergy here and there. Now with the advent of the printing press and greater global education, many more people can be like the beloved Bereans.
For example, when Paul talks about "knowing" the Lord, he is not discussing "book" knowledge, but experiential knowledge attained from a personal relationship.
Yes, that's true, but I'm sure you would agree that the experiential knowledge would have to be in accordance with, or consistent with, what is in the Bible.
Catholics are taught that the elect are predestined irresistibly by God. He actively brings His elect to Him WITHOUT overriding their will. This is an important thing to keep in balance - both realities must be maintained.
I don't understand how the concepts of irresistibility and free will can work together here. With free will, anything can and does happen. This is not the case if predestination is irresistible.