A copy of the Lady of Pontos in which the original writing is visible . . .
Posted on 10/18/2009 2:18:47 PM PDT by NYer
No, it’s not. I think you are confused as to both the events and individuals involved in the timeframe set forth by the writers. There are volumes of studies done on this tracts that it would be futile to try and explain all of this in the course of this thread. For starters, I recommend the book by BXVI “The Apostles”
Really?
Perhaps you can answer the specific verses regarding who saw whom, where and how, etc. If one needs mounds of books to answer a simple question, something's wrong.
Scriptural reading is not like reading the morning newspaper. This is why we have a Catholic Church- so that there there aren’t a million different interpretations of the Truth. There is scriptural text, tradition, and revelation.
I realize that. It is not like reading newspapers, it is accepted on faith. That's why the Creeds start with "We believe..." and not "We know..."
Nevertheless, I would still be curious for you to explain to me how we can have so much "diversity" in who saw whom when and how...or is it all "allegorical?"
A copy of the Lady of Pontos in which the original writing is visible . . .
Well to “know” the mind of God is to be God. But there is no contradiction on faith based on reason drawing upon sources in recorded history, received tradition, revelation, experience, and intellect. There are no inherent doctrinal contradictions in sacred text. I am no scriptural scholar. The most renowned universities in the world have schools of theology and divinity staffed by outstanding scholars. The difficulties you appear to encounter are best addressed to such departments or you consult the many scholarly books and treatises on the subject. A good starting point is the book “On The Way To Jesus Christ” by Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) who has been hailed as the “theological Einstein of our times”
That is NOT universally accepted. Not even the Orthodox Church makes that claim.
The most renowned universities in the world have schools of theology and divinity staffed by outstanding scholars. The difficulties you appear to encounter are best addressed to such departments or you consult the many scholarly books and treatises on the subject
There are many renown scholars who do not find flawless perfection in what is sacred text to some.
A good starting point is the book “On The Way To Jesus Christ” by Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) who has been hailed as the “theological Einstein of our times”
Within the Catholic theological community, Pope Benedict XVI is certainly a well respected theologian. He is also well respected among the Eastern Orthodox for his distinctly Patristic understanding of the Church which is near and dear to the East. But even something as theologically close as the Orthodox Church, by necessity, finds fault with some of his theology.
That doesn't make him universally a theological Einstein; only within his community of believers, but I am sure there are some top Catholic theologians who disagree with him on something.
Then, perhaps, you can explain what Paul means when he says
Really? And what proof do you have for such a sweeping generalization?
I agree with all your observations.
If there were “universal” agreement to the point of “flawless perfection” the need for schools of theology and divinity would be unnecessary.
Yet, for over two millennia, no other text sacred or otherwise, and no other institution religious or otherwise, has undergone the rigors of such searching scrutiny and still have within its ranks leading scientists, inventors, discoverers, poets, writers, artists, sculptors, philosophers, scholars, and former communists, atheists and agnostics from every part of the world and from all persuasions. Unlike any other, the powerful confluence and effect of faith and reason in establishing authenticity of scripture and Catholic Church cannot be denied.
Again, you fall into error in misreading St. Paul’s quote “But we have the mind of Christ.” [1 Cor 2:16] All of Paul’s writing is to do the “will” of Christ with the “mind” of Christ as he has revealed in the Gospels and thorugh his apostolic ministry. This is quite different from knowing the “mind” of God on how He Himself would exactly judge us.
You did not imply, you stated “on the Pentecost.”
To Steelfish in #16, to me in #25.
Unfortunately, I see that the conversation broke down from there. We have the mind of Christ, but don’t often act like it. We are contentious and dividing ourselves every chance we get.
How I wish we could be as one in Him, so that others would know that we are His.
I misstated. I wanted (my intention was) to say on the day of the Ascention but I said on the Pentecost. They are close. I said one thing thinking of another.
As far as the conversation breaking down, it was broken from the beginning because the Bible stories just don't add up. I have yet to read a single specific explanation on problems enocuntered with who saw whom when and where from either one of you.
The “gospel stories don’t add up” according to whose interpretation of what?
Even recent historical narratives of what occurred yesterday could describe the same phenomenon in different perspectives that to the uninformed eye and ear may not “add up.” This makes for a sophomoric conclusion that such real events therefore did not occur. Such is the nature of the supreme non-sequitur of this line of reasoning.
The difference is that the authors of the Gospels are presumed to be inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit; the narratives of yesterday's news are not. I doubt that God would have told each author a different story.
A complete disagreement as to where, when, how and to whom did Jesus appear first is simply not something we can just gloss over and dismiss as "different perspectives."
Please quit stalling and passing judgments (i.e. "to the uniformed ear") and just answer my objections, as stated, verse by verse, instead of giving me these sad excuses.
This makes for a sophomoric conclusion that such real events therefore did not occur
You don't know if they occurred or not; you choose to believe they did. That doesn't mean they did occur. But if you insist they did, maybe you can provide some evidence.
Such is the nature of the supreme non-sequitur of this line of reasoning
Instead of acting indignant, maybe you should try answering my objections, such as "to whom did Jesus first appear and where?"
Your logic carries the seeds of its own destruction. If they all agreed, then the need for narrative is not needed. Perhaps we could simply have an equation. Of course, it’s God inspired through the hand of man. It might help if you consult the tsunami of biblical scholarship on the authenticity and interpretation of text.
The inconsistencies are too blatant for minor "point of view" variation. They are actually mutually exclusive. But at this point it is clear you will do anything to stall answering directly my objections who, where, how and when saw Jesus first.
Of course, it’s God inspired through the hand of man
Of course? How do you know that? What possible objective proof can you offer for such a statement that doesn't reduce to "I just believe it's true, so it must be true"?
It might help if you consult the tsunami of biblical scholarship on the authenticity and interpretation of text.
It might indeed help if you acquaint yourself with some facts on that subject to find out that both the authenticity and interpretation are far from something universally accepted. But for now just answering my question who, where, when and how did Jesus appear to first will suffice.
Far less myself, you surely don’t expect even Biblical scholars to answer your questions in the context of a blog or internet thread without providing an enormous back-up of interpretative materials. The sources are all there for you to consult. I’ve recommended that your read two books by BXVI “The Apostles” and “On the Way To Jesus Christ.” (OWJC)
Indeed, on the issue of proof, Ratzinger has unbelieving individuals like you in mind (OWJC at pp.87-88) where he alludes to the First Temptation of Christ to “prove” himself and again in Matthew 27:40 the demand made by one of the thieves, “If you are the Son of God, come down from the Cross’
These books are not easy reading. Ratzinger essays all the major philosophical, biblical, and historical tracts in support of his arguments and refutations reminiscent of a “theological Einstein” or what TIME magazine called a “walking theological encyclopaedia.” In the Bordleian Library in Oxford, (where I studied) , the treatise of Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” is placed alongside the Bible for its profound scholarship and riveting theological insights.
You point to variations in narrative as “mutually exclusive” but do not specify the nature of the doctrinal exclusivity you seek to advance. Biblical accounts, usages, phrases, differences in oral traditions, translations, text and hypertext are not the common stock of contemporary readers understanding a modern account of events.
I could just as easily direct you to scholars whom you would find disagreeable. Spouting name is either a stalling tactic or a feeble defense of one's convictions insufficiently thought through and digested.
My variations point to mutually exclusive claims as to whom Jesus allegedly appeared first, when, where and how he did that. There is no doctrinal issue here. Just mutually exclusive and unsupported "witness." accounts.
Doctrinally tricky and made-up biblical verses are also plentiful, but these are not the subject of the discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.