7 Step Reason to be Catholic II; Revitalizing Faith in the Wake of Scandal and Dissent

1. Science does not deny the existence of God ; The Intelligent Designer Science does not deny that God exists. The National Academy of Sciences states "Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.(Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science; FAQ; © 1998) http://search.nap.edu/readingroom/books/ evolution98/evol5.html
The Catholic Church does not deny the possibility that scientists may some day conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that evolution played some part in how we came to be. To do so convincingly, however, they will have to overcome the formidable challenges to macroevolution presented by Intelligent Design scientists like astrophysicist Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (astonishing evidence of design, from atom to cosmos); biochemist Michael Behe, Ph.D. (cellular Systems of irreducible complexity); and biologist Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (Ten warning labels for biology textbooks. Wells has also refuted exaptation). An important Intelligent Design Web site is www.arn.org. Also see:
www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html.
In any case, the Church teaches that "Every spiritual soul is created immediately by God . . .The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primal event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.(CCC par. 366; 390). Intelligent Design: Other Informative Web Sites:

In Fundamentals of the Faith, Peter Kreeft suggests skeptics pray as follows: "God, if you are really out there, please . . . somehow . . . let me know . . . I want to know".

2. Other than I AM of the Old Testament, no other founder of a religion is comparable to Jesus.

True respect for others is important, regardless of what religion they practice. However, it is important that students and others become aware of this: With the exception of Jews (and Christians) who speak of I AM of the Old Testament - the Messianic prophecies of which Jesus fulfilled

No authoritative spokesperson for any non Christian religion claims that its founder or reformer is comparable to Jesus in the way he manifested the authority of the Creator including his power over death itself.

Other than I AM, of all founders of a religion Jesus Christ alone manifested the authority of the Creator Only Jesus did all of the following: (a) fulfilled the many Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament; (Y'shua; Moishe Rosen); (b) proved by his works that he had the authority of the Creator; (c) acknowledged that he was God (Jn 20: 28 29); (d) died on the cross to redeem us and make possible our salvation; (e) rose from death on the third day, appeared to many, and ascended into heaven; (f) said he would be judge us after death (Jn 5:22 23) and; (g) said no one comes to the Father except through him (Jn 14:6).

Until about three decades ago, the historical reliability of the Gospels was widely accepted including the apostle-eyewitness authorship of Matthew and John, which include the primary biblical/historical foundation of the Church and the Papacy: Mt 16:18-19, Mt 26:26-29, Mt 28:16-20 and Jn 21:15-17.
About two centuries ago, however, some biblical scholars began an effort to see if the Bible itself might be viewed in such a way as to undermine its own credibility. Over time, a series of self-admitted assumptions and other actions were successfully promoted by some scholars misusing the historical-critical method, including:

(a) ignoring the long-recognized Semitic (primarily Hebrew) sayings and speech patterns of the Gospels. These Semitisms indicate very early dates of origin of the source documents for all four canonical Greek Gospels (A.D. 40-70), thus giving them strong historical credibility Fr. Jean Carmignac has shown that there are many Semitisms that cannot be explained as the author's attempt to imitate the Septuagint, or attributed to the author's mother tongue.

www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/CERTHYPO.TXT ;
www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html.
The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels; Fr. J. Carmignac; © 1987 by Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago; ISBN 0-8199-0887-8.
The Hebrew Christ; Claude Tresmontant © 1989 by Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago; ISBN 0-8199-0876-2.

(b) virtually ignoring the extrabiblical testimony of Early Church Fathers, and other near-contemporaries of Jesus;

(c) wrongly assuming that the four Gospels were first written many decades after Christ and that none was authored by an eyewitness (i.e., Matthew and John).

Papyrologist Carsten P. Thiede concluded that during the 60s the Gospels of Matthew and Mark had already been copied from scrolls onto codices. (Eyewitness to Jesus, p.16; © 1996, Thiede Ancona; Doubleday).
www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html.

Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 1988 Erasmus Lecture, was critical of liberal Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars alike. The Cardinal said that, in addition to their great achievements, they had brought forth great errors. He then stated that texts must be viewed in light of the total movement of history and in light of history's central event, Jesus Christ. (Origins)
Emphasis on authentic biblical/extra-biblical history is essential in Catholic education at all levels as well as in Catholic seminaries. Compromise of such history has been associated with heresy and scandal. (See Goodbye, Good Men; © 2002, Michael S. Rose; Regnery,)
In response to criticism of Early Church Fathers, Ven. John Henry Newman,
while an Anglican priest, wrote as follows in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845):

History is not a creed or a catechism. It gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete, but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says or unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism and Protestantism has ever felt it so. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. (Image Books © 1960) www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction. html (Web site of Bob Elder). Newman became a Catholic and an esteemed Cardinal.

God loves all his children, including our separated brethren (CCC par. 822), many of whom pray and practice their Christian faith with great fervor. But did Jesus not pray that all may be one (Jn 17:17-23) and say, "there shall be one flock, one shepherd"(Jn 10:16)?
Clearly, the Bible indicates that Jesus founded only One Church, and Jesus: (a) founded his Church on Peter alone (Mt 16:18, Lk 6:46 49); (b) gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone (Mt 16:19); (c) said "Feed my lambs . . . tend my sheep . . . feed my sheep" to Peter alone (Jn 21:15 17); (d) provided for papal and apostolic succession (Isa 22:22), in which the key indicates authority transferable to a successor) and; (e) protects his Church from doctrinal error (CCC par. 888 892). www. ewtn.com/library/scriptur/POPE.TXT (Scott Hahn).
When Jesus said, "Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church" (Mt 16:18), he would have spoken in Aramaic, his native language. In Aramaic, the only meaning this statement can have is the Catholic interpretation. On this, linguistic scholars of all faiths are in virtually unanimous agreement.

5. After giving Peter primacy, Jesus commissioned the apostles to make disciples of all nations Having given primacy to Peter, the risen Jesus commissioned the eleven apostles (all but Judas Iscariot): "Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and teach them all I have commanded you" (Mt 28:18 20).
Do the important differences between Catholic and non Catholic teaching mean "different gospels" are preached? Note Paul's words on this (Gal 1:6-9).

6. The Pope and Catholic bishops successors of Peter and the apostles continue to make disciples of all nations

Those apostles and, with Peter's approval, Matthias and Paul, followed this directive of the risen Jesus. Through the solemn "laying on of hands" through the ages, their successors the Pope and Catholic bishops of today continue to carry out this mandate of Jesus. "The sole Church of Christ . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.(CCC par. 816).

Protestant minister Marcus Grodi was haunted by a dilemma: Each Sunday I would stand in my pulpit and interpret Scripture for my flock, knowing that within a fifteen-mile radius of my church there were dozens of other Protestant pastors - all of whom believed that the Bible alone is the sole authority for doctrine and practice - but each was teaching something different from what I was teaching. Especially troubling for Grodi was the knowledge that "Every Protestant minister I knew had a different set of criteria that he listed as necessary for salvation." After much reading, particularly of the Early Church Fathers and Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Grodi realized that . . . the Protestant answer to church renewal was, of all things, unscriptural, and that the single most important issue was authority. (Surprised by Truth; pp. 38-51). Grodi and his wife Marilyn became Catholic. He founded the Coming Home Network www.chnetwork.org (800 664-5110) and hosts The Journey Home weekly call-in program on EWTN.
With the foreknowledge that Peter would deny him three times and abandon him at Calvary, Jesus gave Peter primacy among the apostles as noted in 4 a, b and c above. Jesus promised to be with the One Church he founded until the end of time; not even the Gates of hell would prevail against it.
Certainly, through the Bible, Jesus would have let us know if he intended the divided Christianity of today, with its more than 33,000 denominations and its many contradictory teachings on matters on which one's very salvation may well depend. And yet the most careful search of the Bible reveals nothing other than this:
Other than those led by Peter, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus authorize anyone to "make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:18-20) and the Bible includes no "escape clause" by which Jesus authorizes anyone to reject Peter or his successors to form, or join, a different Church. The exorcist in Mk 9:38 did not preach a contrary gospel. Nor do two or three embrace such a gospel if truly gathered in his name (Mt 18:20). (Also see Mt 7:21-23). Paul has ominous words for those who preach a gospel contrary to that of Christ (Gal 1:6-9). And Peter warned against private interpretation of Scripture (2 Pet 3:16) which has led to the proliferation of non-Catholic Christian denominations we see today.

For each of us, life on earth will one day end. Except for that of Jesus (and I AM), the tomb of every founder/ reformer of a religion is occupied, or will be, as someone has said. Do we close our eyes rather than prayerfully seek the Church to which Jesus calls us?
Doesn't it make sense to belong to the One Church founded by Jesus, knowing that Jesus himself will judge us at death, affirming our ultimate choice of heaven or hell based not on the decisions we might then wish we had made, but on the decisions we actually made during our life on earth? (See CCC Par.1033; 1020 1050).
The false idea that God's everlasting love for us (e.g., Is 54:8) guarantees our salvation is widely believed. But the clear teaching of the Church regarding God's everlasting or "unconditional" love can be summarized as follows: God loves us unconditionally and will do so eternally whether we are in heaven or in hell. God's unconditional love does not mean unconditional salvation (CCC par. 1035).
The fullness of the means of salvation - i.e., all seven Sacraments including the EUCHARIST, "without which you shall not have life in you (Jn 6:53-59)," as well as the spiritual leadership of the successor of Peter is found only in the Catholic Church. The great importance of becoming and remaining Catholic is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Par. 846 848) and in the Companion to the CCC (Par. 847).
"Observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do," said Jesus in regard to those who sat on Moses seat. (Mt 23:2-3). Surely this applies to any in the Church whose scandalous behavior mocks their preaching. Not all popes proved personally worthy of the office. But, as with Judas Iscariot, Jesus did not suppress the free will of Peter, other apostles, or their successor popes/ bishops. But no pope has destroyed the fabric of doctrine of the One Church to which the Father, in the name of Jesus, sent the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26; Acts 2:1-4).
In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II states that the Documents of Vatican II are to be interpreted using the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church: The Catechism was also indispensable in order that all the richness of the teaching of the Church following the Second Vatican Council could be preserved in a new synthesis and be given a new direction. Without the Catechism of the universal Church this would not have been accomplished. (p. 164; Knopf; © 1994).
CCC Search Engine: www.kofc.org/faith/catechism/catechism.cfm;

The first question you might ask is: "Who was the founder of your faith, or the first to promote or reform it? If that person was not Jesus, ask:
(a) "What signs did he (she) manifest to show that he had the authority of the Creator, and how do those signs compare with those of Jesus?" Other than I AM of the Old Testament, the Messianic prophecies of which Jesus fulfilled, no authoritative apologist for any other religion claims that their founder manifested signs comparable to those of Jesus. See Step 2, (a) through (g) above and "Other Religions." In the Old Testament Hebrew, God is Elohim (masculine plural, meaning the strong ones) implying plurality, not Eloah, the singular form. Similarly in Gen 1:26, "Let us make man in our image"
(b) "Did your founder/reformer indicate or acknowledge that he/she was God, as Jesus did?" (Jn 20:28-29). Even if some others may have made this claim, their tombs are all occupied, or will be. Wonder workers are found in all cultures, but history could never remain silent about another like Jesus.
(c) And finally, ask: "Does it make sense, really, to follow someone other
than Jesus, the ONLY ONE who manifested the power to keep, in the hereafter, the promises he made to us?"

If the founder was Jesus, note Steps 3 to7 above. Then ask:
(a) "What is the pillar and bulwark of the truth?" Paul's answer is not Scripture, but the Church of the living God (1 Tim 3:15).
(b) On whom did Jesus found his Church? On Peter alone (Step 4). Jesus differentiated between the "foundation" (Himself), and the "Rock" on which the foundation is laid (Lk 6:48-49, and Mt 7:24-27).
(c) "To whom did Jesus give the keys of heaven?" To Peter alone (Mt 16:19). Luther affirmed this Catholic position long after his excommunication, but denied the papal authority of Peter's successors. Calvin, attempting to duplicate The Keys, misquoted Jesus in Luke. Show how Isaiah 22:22 and Mt 28:20 indicate apostolic/papal succession.
(d) Ignatius - Bishop of Antioch, martyr and hearer of John the Apostle - described the Eucharist as "the flesh of Christ", "the medicine of immortality."
(e) Note that there is no biblical Escape Clause to reject the One Church Jesus founded and promised to be with always. Against it, even the gates of hell will not prevail. By encouraging a Catholic to leave that Church, or discouraging anyone from joining it, is that person not attempting to "prevail against it" (Mt 16:18)?
Next, I suggest that you and your well-meaning non-Catholic friend explore together the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. Using the index, you can quickly find the answer to virtually any question about what the Church teaches. Extensive footnotes provide the biblical basis for these teachings.

God made a covenant with Abraham (as with Adam, Noah, Moses and David - preceding the New Covenant of Jesus (Mt 26:26-28)) and promised to establish it with Isaac. (Gen 17:21) Although God made no covenant with Ishmael, he was conceived after Sarai (Sarah) gave Hagar to Abraham as a wife Gen: 16:3). God named Ishmael God hears (Gen 16:11), blessed him (Gen 17:20) and promised to make him a great nation (Gen 17:2). Isaac and Ishmael went their separate ways, but their bond as sons of Abraham endured. When Abraham died, at age 175, together these half brothers buried him next to his wife Sarah (Gen 25:7-10). True descendants of Abraham/ Isaac - and of Abraham/Ishmael strive to come together in peace as sons and daughters of a common father.
About 2,400 years later, in about A.D. 610, Muhammad began to dictate The Koran (Q'uran) - messages he believed came from Allah through an angel. It is said that the ancestry of Muhammad can be traced to Ishmael through Kedar, his second son (Gen 25:13). Today there are more than 70 separate Islamic denominations.
Several suras of the Koran appear to refer favorably to the Bible, Jews and Christians, e.g.: Allah sent Jesus and gave him the Gospel in which there is light and guidance (5:46); Muslims are to forgive the People of the Book (Christians/ Jews) who attempt to convert them (2:109); Jesus was a prophet (2:86, 136) with whom Allah made a covenant (33:7). Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet.
In contrast to the Koran, however, are the following biblical words and acts of Jesus: (a) turned water into wine (forbidden; sura 5:90) at the wedding feast (Jn 2:1-11); (b) said of a cup of wine "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood (forbidden; 5:3) of the covenant" (Mt 26:27); (c) warned his followers not to follow future desert prophets (a veiled reference to Muhammad?) (Mt 24:24-26); (d) said, "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30) and "Before Abraham was, I AM" (Jn 8:58), implying equality with the Father/Allah; (e) replying to Thomas, Jesus acknowledged that he was God (Jn 20:28-29) and; (f) unique in world history, Jesus manifested the power and authority of the Creator (Step 2).
The following suras cause Catholics and other Christians to reject the Koran as Divine revelation: (a) Jesus was not God and not the Son of God (4:171); (b) Jesus was just one of several prophets preceding Muhammad, The Prophet (4:163, 2:136) and; (c) Jesus was not crucified (4:157-159).
Clearly, one must choose: Bible or Koran? Jesus or Muhammad? One's eternal salvation may well depend on making the right choice and living accordingly. Why? Because Jesus said unequivocally that he would be our ultimate judge and said no one comes to the Father except through him (See Baptism; CCC Par.1213-1284). By what standard will Jesus judge us? To gain eternal life, Jesus said we must keep the commandments (Mt 19:16-17; 22:36-39). We must love our enemies. God will forgive us only if we forgive others (Mt 5:43-44, 6:15); and we must forgive "from the heart" (Mt 18: 35). How will Jesus judge those who engage in violence toward innocent Jews, Christians, Muslims and others? Within Islam as well, such acts are condemned. Although they saw Palestine as a separate case, The Organization of Islamic Conferences declared, "We unequivocally condemn acts of international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations", (#7; Kuala Lumpur, 1-3 April, 2002). www.oic-oci.org.

John 1:12 "But as many as received him [JESUS], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name [JESUS]."

No "except..." here either, SD.

Hello? That is the "except." LOL

I thought it was "none are good, no one none at all, nobody." Now we find that some can be considered good.

(Or is it that goodness is not a requirement for entry into Heaven?)

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. (John 10:14)

Are you His? What is His name?

Interesting theory. So everyone gets knocked off his horse.

Friend, many are called but few are chosen. Many know what they are called to do but do not yield and do it. To those that yield and experience the mighty moving of God in their lives ... well, yes it is a bit of "knocked off your horse" experience.

You make God sound somewhat vain. I don't think that was your intent. God will get His glory, He doesn't covet it.

Covet? No. Desire? Yes. God is also a jealous God.

Isa.42:8
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

I'm afraid I don't follow. You think that God, by His nature, has to make Himself known by name as you describe above? Again, an interesting theory, but I don't agree.

There is much we don't agree on. However, do you know of any artist that doesn't identify his work? How much more the God of all creation? He will always leave his imprint on His work.

"I'm sorry, but that is clearly overlaying an ancient text with a modern concept that at the time of their writing didn't exist. One could say the exact same thing about numerous other ancient stories of the either the fantastic or semi-fantastic."

You completely miss my meaning. I am not extrapolating from the present to the past. I am saying the modern concept at the time of their writing didn't exist--just as you say. Yet the writing is realistic. The psychology of the situation is dead-on. No such texts or anything similar appear in fiction until the nineteenth century. Only journalistic veracity can account for it.

Here, read it yourself:
____________________________________________________________
The neighbors therefore, and those who saw that he was blind before, said, "Isn’t this he who sat and begged?" Others were saying, "It is he." Still others were saying, "He looks like him."

He said, "I am he."

They therefore were asking him, "How were your eyes opened?"

He answered, "A man called Jesus made mud, anointed my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash.’ So I went away and washed, and I received sight."

Then they asked him, "Where is he?"

He said, "I don’t know."

They brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees. It was a Sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight.

He said to them, "He put mud on my eyes, I washed, and I see."

Some therefore of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath."

Others said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?"
There was division among them.

Therefore they asked the blind man again, "What do you say about him, because he opened your eyes?"

He said, "He is a prophet."

The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight, and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?"

His parents answered them, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but how he now sees, we don’t know; or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself."

His parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if any man would confess him as Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.

Therefore his parents said, "He is of age. Ask him."

____________________________________________________________

It has the ring of truth. The pharisees demanding answers, the blind man saying, "All I know is he told me to put mud on my eyes and wash and I did and now I can see." The pharisees getting increasingly annoyed, starting to call him names, finally calling in the parents who don't want to get in trouble and get a little surly in the bargain.

You completely miss my meaning.

Apparantly I must have.

I am not extrapolating from the present to the past. I am saying the modern concept at the time of their writing didn't exist--just as you say. Yet the writing is realistic. The psychology of the situation is dead-on. No such texts or anything similar appear in fiction until the nineteenth century. Only journalistic veracity can account for it.

You many want to avail yourself to many of the Buddhist texts. It is reasonable to posit that the two traditions spread quite rapidly in part due to the supreme simplicity of their respective natures, and how those were represented in their texts. They are essentially the same in style. However, it is, IMO, overreaching to state that 'only journalistic veracity' can account for it.

Although I consider it wasteful and inefficient to post line after line of sacred texts here (not that you are doing so), here:

Subhuti said: "If I understand correctly, one who wishes to reach perfect wisdom should study the way things are in the world and should practice the perfections fully and in depth, but should not believe them to be ultimately real, nor should he make concepts and doctrines out of them."

The Buddha replied: "Just so, Subhuti. The one who contemplates existence in this way knows the nature of the conditioned and of the unconditioned and makes himself an expert in pointing out the truth to others, both with words and without words."

Subhuti asked: "But is this just for the wise and the intelligent?"

"No, indeed," replied the Buddha. "This is open to all, even to the dull witted and to those who can't pay attention. The door is open to anyone who wants to tread this path--but not to the person who is lazy and indifferent."

As an aside:
Q: Do you know why the Buddha cannot vacuum the corners ?
A: Because his vacuum cleaner does not have attachments ...

Your posting proves my point. What you cite from the Buddhist texts might have been a dialogue out of Plato or any other ancient philosophic writing. Dialogues of this sort were not uncommon.

Notice the difference, though. In the Gospel text of John there is a psychological subtext--the initial confusion of the neighbors who recognize the man who had been a blind beggar but was now fully sighted. We can sense their struggle to understand what has happened: "It certainly looks like him but now he can see."

Then there is the aggressive hostility of the authorities who are already exercised enough about Jesus without this further disturbance. They immediately latch on to a technicality: the cure was performed on the Sabbath.

There is the shrug-of-the-shoulders response, "All I know is he put mud on my eyes and told me to wash and now I can see." In other words--"Figure it out for yourself, I can't. But it happened just the same."

Then there is the internal bickering and confusion among the pharisees themselves, some even tending to side with Jesus. In their frustration they send for the parents who are wary of their authority.

When the parents are grilled, they throw the ball back in the Pharisees' court. They admit their son was born blind, but that's about it. "We don't know anything about it. Ask him yourself, he is of age."

What is stunning is the psychological dimension, the play of characters, the authenticity of the colloquial speech and situation, the way even the humble parents are assertive personalities, yet without going over the line and bringing censure on themselves. This is all very authentic-sounding and hard to imagine as fiction.

The Gospel writers, remember, were not sophisticated literary men--except perhaps for Luke. John is simple and straight-forward. In fact, John's Gospel is further supported by his telling of the Passion. Excavations in modern times have indicated the architectural details of Pilate's Praetorium were accurately depicted.

Here is the Buddhist text on the birth of Buddha:
___________________________________________________________
Mindful and conscious the Bodhisattva stayed in the Tushita body.

Mindful and conscious the Bodhisattva descending from the Tushita body entered the womb of his mother.

When the Bodhisattva descended from the Tushita body, there appeared a great splendour surpassing the divine majesty of the gods. The universe of ten thousand worlds shook and quaked.

As other women give birth to children sitting of lying low, not so the Bodhisattva's mother. She gave birth to Bodhisattva standing. When the Bodhisattva was born, first the gods took him and then men.

As soon as the Bodhisattva was born he stood on the earth and took even steps, saying 'I am the best in the world. This is my last existence. I will have no birth again.
____________________________________________________________

Now here is the text from Luke:
____________________________________________________________

Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, 5 in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. (NASB)

____________________________________________________________

Notice how the text from Luke is rooted in the historical context. This is radically different from the "shaking of ten thousand worlds" of the Buddhist text, which is clearly and unambiguously imaginative. The whole feel is essentially and radically different. The Buddha is primarily a metaphysical ideal. Christ was an actual human being born in a real historical context, crucified by real authorities, cited in the texts of real pagan and Jewish historians.

Good grief, how is Jesus revealed to us? One way is by his Word.

We were (at lest I was) discussing the instances where God would elect someone in a culture where he remained ignorant of the Word. A native on an unknown island that has had no contact with the outside.

The fact that God reveals Himself through the Bible has little impact where there are no Bibles, right?

Your position, it seems, is that God will not elect anyone in a culture without a chance to read the Bible. I happen to think God can elect whomever He wants.

You think that God, by His nature, has to make Himself known by name as you describe above?

Think of it this way Dave ... when you met your lovely wife, ... was it important to you that, ... at some point, she knew your name ?

So wha are you saying? That God always reveals Himself to a person with an intellectual knowledge of His Name? OR that God will only elect people who are in cultures where the Bible is? That if you are in an unchurched place, you are automatically screwed and God will never choose to elect such a person?

It's true that's it's not recorded that Abraham ever asked God for His name. But Moses did ... and God did not hesitate to tell Moses His name.

That's one school of thought. The other is that God did not so much tell Moses His Name as much as He chastised Moses for asking. It's all in the way you look at it.

Further, it's quite evident that the name of JESUS figures prominently in the New Testament accounts. It is clear that there are no accounts of any New Testament believers who remained unfamiliar with the name of JESUS.

I agree. Which, I guess for the sola Christian, ends the discussion. I am often puzzled why those who limit themselves to only what is revealed explicitly between the covers question those who speculate about the meaning of what is within.

It's the old "explicit bersus implicit" argument.

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.