Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
That's pure speculation, Kosta. We can't know exactly how that worked. From the evidence of the Bible, I can't think of when Jesus commanded the Apostles to treat Him that way while He was with them (before the crucifixion).
Even after the Resurrection, just before His Ascension, not all believed, as Mat 28:16-17 tells us ...
Well, I'm not certain that "doubt" absolutely equals "disbelieved". But in any event, I thought it was generally accepted that solid belief as we understand it, was not fully formed until Pentecost.
In the Jewish mindset of the 1st century Middle East, it was unthinkable that any man, let alone a poor carpenter, could be God, or that it is possible for man to be God. They also could not find any support of this in their scriptures. Jesus does not fit the "profile" of the Jewish messiah. Out of seven, He fulfills only one—being Jewish.
No, Jesus is described all over the OT, so the scripture IS there. Some to many did not see it. We just read this passage in church not two hours ago:
Luke 24:25-27 : 25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
It doesn't get any clearer than this. He called them fools for not seeing what you say isn't there to see. :)
Then his freedom is faux freedom. It's a charade. He is led to believe that he has freedom but God didn't tell him the whole truth—that his choices have been "preordained." He is under the impression that he is free to choose, and yet he is not. He is deceived.
And Christian God does not deceive. Those who say that Peter was made to believe he was free to choose are saying God decieved, indeed lied to Peter. Just as those who claim that Christ did not die on the Cross are saying that Christ decieved the world into believing he did die on the cross.
That's Santa Klaus theology, with a twist.
Well, you be the judge
Kosta, this is obviously referring to future events. If you interpret this to mean that in the future all Gentiles are shut out, then why are you bothering with Christianity? :) The "temple" probably refers to God's Church, which includes some Gentiles.
They [Latins] don't believe that the Bible itself is without human error.
Some may think that, but that's not what the Catechism says.
Our Latin brothers will also tell you that your side's reading of St. Paul is flawed, and their Eastern brothers will fully agree. +Paul is by no means "neglected" in the Apostolic Church. The Reformed Paul is.
As I have said, then Paul was the most cryptic writer in human history and rarely wrote what he really meant. Perhaps he foresaw that the Fathers would come along later and repair all of his errors.
The Bible tells us that the Spirit is God's power, not God Himself. The concept of a separate Hypostasis of one God, the Holy Spirit, was not preached even in the early Gospels.
No, the Bible is clear that Holy Spirit is a Person. From Got Questions:
We can know that the Holy Spirit is indeed a Person because He possesses a mind, emotions, and a will. The Holy Spirit thinks and knows (1 Corinthians 2:10). The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). The Spirit intercedes for us (Romans 8:26-27). The Holy Spirit makes decisions according to His will (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). The Holy Spirit is God, the third “Person” of the Trinity. As God, the Holy Spirit can truly function as the Comforter and Counselor that Jesus promised He would be (John 14:16,26; 15:26).
And then, there is plenty of room to argue and dicker over the best way to say something.
Why, if you're not afraid of Dominicans threateningly swinging their tactical ninja rosaries, you don't even have to like Aristotle to be a good Catholic. There are some Catholics around whom I wouldn't say that too loudly though .... At Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, CA they'll drag you out to the nearest avocado orchard and tie you to a tree for the coyotes to devour -- but then again, they're very, uh, zealous. (And if you knew enough Heidegger, others in the faculty would sneak out and turn you loose, if you promised to go away and never come back.)
I think the FULL CREDIT to the CHURCH for the Bible is a needlessly argumentative and imprecise way to put it. YEAH the Church was there first. Yeah, agreement on the canon kind of bubbled up, as so many things have done in the Church. Yeah, the canon seems to have arisen in response to somebody ELSE coming up with what was from our POV an "anti-canon". So, yeah, as seems to be the case with most big decisions, a number of opinions floated around, the more off-the-wall ones were rejected with prejudice, but some tension and irresolution was allowed to exist for quite a long while before it was deemed necessary to resolve the issue. So I don't think it's wrong to say that God acting through the Church formed the canon.
But it wasn't a "First this and then that" kind of process, any more than a good argument with one's spouse is. God acted in and through the Church to form the canon and God acted in and through the canon to form the Church. And now that the canon is, we think, fixed, there is still this dialectic.
A big part of the problem is perception and our place in history - after almost 2k years of the Church. A whole lot of stuff has been thought, said, and written. And in many areas of conversation the bubbling ferment of prayer, study, dialogue, and debate has left a solid precipitate of doctrine, much of which is not just solid but crystalline.
So when somebody asks what do you guys think the Church says about such and such, he's likely to get an answer which is a snapshot of the precipitate. Then if he even acknowledges the beauty of the crystal, he will still complain that it's all so lifeless, unyielding, and rigid.
Another and related analogy about dogma and the life of the Christian is that all the drawings in my Grey's Anatomy are lifeless and still. If I were to conclude from them that humans are also lifeless and still, I might swear off sex I might not be interested in an intimate and personal relationship, I might not even hope such a relationship was possible, with a human type individual.
The Dogma is not the Church and is not the Lord. Plenty of people with less speculative minds and less troubled by curiosity could have a fine and loving relationship with Jesus, enriched and strengthened, to be sure, by the Sacraments without having the least clue about Aristotle's use of of hypostasis as explicated by Aquinas.
Let me try it again: One can give an account of human sexual relations focussing almost entirely on hormones of all sorts and in all doses, from a drop of estradiol to a slug of estrogen and a surging tide of testosterone. If that were all there was to it, Romeo and Juliet, Paulo and Francesca, Tristan and Isolde, Bonnie and Clyde, Frankie and Johnny -- none of it would have been written, or at least none of it would commend itself to us as having some spark of eternal beauty in it. I bet a truly diabolical parent could give the birds and the bees talk in such a way as to scare the child into lifelong celibacy - or very nearly.
But in my anatomy book or the birds and the bees talk, or in dogma, we are almost doomed from the outset to fail in our mission. It might, for example, be better to say, "The Church is King and the Bible is Queen." (I'll have to think to see if I really want to defend that, this is just an attempt at an example.) That might be a better way to convey the give-and-take of the relationship. But sooner or later someone is going to insist that we reduce it to technically precise language, and when that happens so much very important stuff cannot be said, that a very wrong impression is inevitably given.
But at the end of all this blether, yeah we have our non-negotiables. About them all we can hope to accomplish is clarity and maybe a sense that we have sold the notion that a reasonable person of good will can believe this stuff.
/rant off
He was never treated as God in the Synaptic Gospels; no one prayed to or worshiped him. It is only at the end of Matthew (Ch 28), just before he gives them the Great Commission that we find (verses 16-17)
Clearly here those who doubted were distinguished from those who worshiped him, and this was after the resurrection.
But even here the Greek word proskuneo does not mean worship, as in worshiping God, but rather as veneration (actually kissing of the hand type of veneration), or to do homage. This is applicable to anyone superior to you.
The Greek word for worship which means to serve, as in serving God, is latreuo.
And even when it came to venerating the Risen Christ some (it doesn't say how many) of his closest and staunchest followers were doubtful.
If they thought he is God, they would have prayed to him and worshiped him as God.
Well, I'm not certain that "doubt" absolutely equals "disbelieved".
Legalese, FK, like is isn't always' is...
But in any event, I thought it was generally accepted that solid belief as we understand it, was not fully formed until Pentecost
You are right! That's why the Synaptic Gospels (written after 70 AD) do not treat Christ as God, but concdentrate on his humanity (as a Jewish messiah), and John's Gospel (written at the end of the century, some 30 years later) does!
By then, Christianity clearly evolved into a separate religion (partly because it was rejected by the Rabbis at Jamnia) and was in fact actively doing everything to shed its Jewish roots, character, Sabbath, or mode of worship, while recognizing Jesus as fully divine as well, not just an "image of God" (as +Paul says), but God himself.
No, Jesus is described all over the OT, so the scripture IS there. Some to many did not see it. We just read this passage in church not two hours ago: Luke 24:25-27...27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself
Please provide passages where Moses and others, without any doubt, write about Jesus. Thank you.
If God(Jesus) can see the past, preset, and future.. Then, "Pre-ordained" is a moot concept.. because what "is to be" is observable to God.. as if it already happened.. i.e. the three cock crowing.. In THAT sense pre-ordained is valid.. Then, how far back and how far forward can this concept be extrapolated?.. to infinity?..
Whether something is pre-ordained OR Not is not observable to humans.. in this dimension.. easily except by prophecy.. Thats the wonder of prophecy.. the pre-ordained aspect of it.. How could prophecy even happen were it not for pre-ordination.. Were the prophets urinating up a rope or tapped into the future?..
You mean we believe the Bible is a testimony from God to us?
I'll tell you what, you believe what you believe and I'll know what I know. :)
The temptation of Jesus was a charade if He did not have the potential, in His human nature, to succumb just as it would be a charade if He, in His human nature, did not possess the free will to resist. He made the choice that Adam didn't. If He resisted because of His divine nature, then He was not fully human, and His temptation was a charade.
I suppose you have to say that since your side thinks that man has to use his inner goodness, apart from God, to make his own decisions. I suppose you have Jesus apart from God for the same reasons. Jesus was only ever "apart" from God once, and it wasn't during the temptation.
Well, of course it's in the future...that's what prophesies are all about and Revelation is prophetic.
If you interpret this to mean that in the future all Gentiles are shut out,...
Given that the only place Revelation mentions Gentiles is exclusionary, that seems reasonable.
...then why are you bothering with Christianity?
Because I like it. :)
As I have said, then Paul was the most cryptic writer in human history and rarely wrote what he really meant. Perhaps he foresaw that the Fathers would come along later and repair all of his errors
The Apostolic Fathers, such as +Ignatius and +Polycarp and others were followers of +Paul. In fact the whole Church, East and West is! I think it is somewhat disingenuous of you to suggest that the very disciples who were ordained by Apostles in person would preach false doctrines of the same Apostles, or that they somehow "misunderstood" their teaching. Don;t forget they all spoke the same Greek too.
No, the Bible is clear that Holy Spirit is a Person. From Got Questions:
Of course—all of it is in the New Testament. The concept of Trinity is a Christian concept; the Jews refer to the Spirit of God as the power of God, not a person.
Yes, God "sees" the future, but the question is does he decide what we will decide (in which case it's not our decision) or does he know what choices we will make on our own? It's one thing to see all our choices "here and now" and it's an altogether different thing to determine without us what choices we will make.
His two natures are neither fused nor confused. They are separate and distict and unconfused in one Person, one eternal and divine, without the beginning, and the other human, with a beginning. At no time were they one and the same.
Amen and amen.
Note to all who think man can help save himself:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
Read the context, for sure. But don’t miss the point: salvation is so “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth” (Romans 9:11).
No, the author of Job is telling us that Job was "blameless" or "perfect." Since to you the book of Job is "inspired," it must be a true statement, regardless form which point of view; otherwise it's misleading.
But I know what the Bible says: "In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil." (Job 1:1 NIV) "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." (Job 1:1 KJV)
Why am I not allowed to take POV into consideration if I believe the Bible is God-breathed? That doesn't follow. The POV is made known either within the passage or through other scripture. Thus it is not misleading. In this case it is internal. Notice that the first clause says he is blameless or perfect and the second says that he feared God. If the first POV is NOT that of men, that men saw him as perfect, THEN the second clause is redundant.
Are you not "justified" by faith? Are you blameless, i.e. "perfect?"
Not before men, like Job was, but in God's eyes, yes. Sounds ironic, doesn't it? :)
How can they know he is perfect and shunned evil? Who can say that for another human being, but God?
By simple observation. Of course it isn't a pronouncement of absolute truth, since we know Job sinned. It amounts to his reputation.
Those who believe do not need proof.
Then why do you continually ask for it, especially on matters of the truth of scriptures?
Those who believe do not believe because of the Bible. The Bible does not give anyone faith. So, offering the scripture as "proof" is either proving something you already believe, and therefore do not need proof, or trying to prove something to those who don't believe when they were not given faith. In either case it's not a matter of taste.
Yours is a blind faith, so perhaps you believe "just because" or "just because the Church says". Ours is a reasoned faith. God gives faith, but He uses tools such as the Bible to give that faith meaning. The Bible explains what exactly our faith is in, and that it can (does) make sense to us.
The problem is the faith given to us is catholic and not personal.
Ah, I did not know that "catholic" meant an impersonal God. I thought that was just your take. Fascinating.
FK: "I think it actually takes proactive work to make it NOT fit."
No, discrepancies are quite obvious. The problem is reconciling them, which can be done within a historical, cultural and linguistic context of the time when the scriptures were written. In doing so, they lose some of their fairytalish qualities and become a window into the past.
I've seen what is left after some of this "cleansing" is done. Not pretty. It is unrecognizable compared to what the Bible teaches. No thanks. :)
I do think that there is some imprecision with the use of terms which may add to the confusion. The key area of contention IMHO is the great and cumbersome one of the authority of Scripture, I think. And it is complicated because of the various meanings attached to terms like innerrancy and infallibility.
I cannot come in wholeheartedly on kosta's side because while I do try to stay abreast of what's going on in literary, historical, and form criticism, I think maybe I tend to say,"Well, the Church says the Bible is da Bomb, it's what God gave us, so I'm going to assume that even in all the killing of pregnant women and such there is some truth for me to find there," while I think Kosta is more wholesale in discounting some of that stuff.
On the other hand, I get the distinction between "personal" and "catholic" that I think kosta is making, but, at a guess I'd say the adversarial rhetoric hinders the discovery of meaning and intention.
As an adult type person (allegedly) I haven't thought that Jonah or Job were actual histories. I DO think they are inspired stories. That means that one can learn from Jonah that it don't pay to mess with God, and HE will go to extraordinary means to accomplish His will in your life. AND God loves even Ninevites (not to mention their cattle), and we are total jerks when God shows mercy to someone we want to see fried.
And from Job I learn, well, not enough. It is extremely profound. But what I took away from it was that if I get angry at God, I should tell him. If all I am is a jerk, I should bring my jerkiness to God, wholeheartedly, nothing held back, and God will finally come in His terrifying mercy and graciously, kindly, and lovingly show me what a jerk I am and how wonderful He is. And my conceit is an infinitesimally cheap price to pay for the wonder of a theophany.
So both of you can jump on me if you like. But I think truth would be better served if you both articulated in positive terms what you think the Bible is good for.
Feel free to throw several large rocks in my direction. I'm just wanting two good guys to fight more efficiently.
I thought I read earlier on this thread that there really is no official "canon" in Orthodoxy. And, I didn't think the Deuts were made OFFICIAL canon by any Church until Trent, in response to the Reformation. I think I have heard some Catholics say that it all really was official from 1100 years earlier, but if so, I've never heard what the purpose of the Trent canon (decree?) was, then.
I'll bet a box of Spudnuts cinnamon bearclaws that the Church, as usual: a day late and a dollar short, defined the canon at Trent because somebody else had come up with a, so-to-speak, counter-canon. So, in the usual reactive mode, they said, "No, that's not it. THIS is it."
I cannot stress enough that the Church does not lay stuff down ex nihilo. (We leave that to God.) She says stuff when an issue of contention arises and she has to rear her substantial bulk up and deliver an opinion.
My daughter just called to complain about a "do" where she worships, at the Mission in San Buenaventura, known to the mapmakers as Ventura, CA. Cardinal Mahoney, the great and terrible, showed up for some anniversary or other. She couldn't understand why they did something THIS inefficient way when THAT way would have worked better.
I reminded her that God didn't choose us because we're smart or good, and out behavior continues to provide ample testimony to that simple principle. The maxim is, "I don't believe in organized religion; I'm a Catholic."
So it is with the canon. Somebody says, "Hey, I think I read in the papers that Luther says 'The Song of the Three Young men' is bogus."
"Did he now? Drat! I suppose we'll have to do something. Somebody go wake up the Pope."
(Actually, that's not entirely fair, Apparently Pope St, Pius V (O.P., by the way) was pretty good, though Protestants might not think so. He wasn't idle, anyway.
Going in circles Eh!.. I admit its hard to play what if I knew the future.. Hint: You can watch the present happen while seeing the future happen before it happens.. while knowing the past.. Would be like watching a video tape. or DVD...
Little wonder whats normal with God is freaky tri-partite linear timing with man.. Come to think of it.. The history of mankind might on rewindable "tape" in "heaven".. making it possible to study any period in intimate past, present , future detail.. Could be a "perk" in the SPiritual Dimension..
Or else the Church was just saying, “I really mean it, this time. Don’t make me come up there.”
Thanks for your kind words and the other substantive posts.
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.