|
Post by laffingtiger on Mar 23, 2010 1:01:06 GMT
Well what can I say? I disagree with you that the texts you provide prove that those who are faithful to God will have eternal life with him in heaven. You state that: "The New Testament references to Jesus promising that the faithful will live with Him in Heaven are quite unequivocal". I agree. What you are saying here is my opinion also so do not attempt to paint me with an opinion I didn’t espouse. You also state: "Somebody who says the New Testament does not refer to an afterlife in heaven...." I DID NOT say this. You are either misunderstanding what I said or blatently misrepresenting what I actually said. However, it is still my opinion that the concept that those who are faithful to God will have eternal life with him in heaven is inferred in the bible but not actually explicitly stated in the text. I'll repeat the phrase faithful to God. Where is it explicitly stated? You also state "someone who dismisses church tradition and the development of doctrine..." Where on earth are you getting this chestnut from? Where did I dismiss church tradition? I merely stated the ACCEPTED FACTS that there is no reference to Marys Assumption and other similar stories in the text of the bible. These facts became known later and were given to the faithful by early church fathers. This is a fact. It doesnt mean I reject church tradition as you claim. This is once again the height of dishonesty on your part. Its easy to ban someone when you claim they said things they didnt and thus paint them in a far worse light than they actually are in. I have to question your motives here Hib. You seem to have a habit of banning people who appear to be your intellectual equals and entertain others (whom I won’t name) who are reluctant to engage in debate with you once you post a few complicated long words. It’s not an admirable trait. If you still feel the need to ban me, well you are the boss and I accept it. I would just ask that you do not delete my posts as I feel I have contributed to the site in many positive ways and I would like others to be able to see my side of the story and judge both my character and yours for themselves in this very revealing exchange. I'll leave you with this quote: "THE MEASURE OF A MAN IS WHAT HE DOES WITH POWER." Plato Consult your conscience Sir. God bless....... If it's any consolation Harris i'm sidingwith you on this one. He is not showing much Christian charity. There has always been an Elohim in the church (you know power and control) Yahweh (the compassionate) is always put on the back burner!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 23, 2010 10:55:00 GMT
I am afraid harris's statement seems to me to be totally incomprehensible. I do not mean that I disagree with it - I mean that I cannot understand it at all. I am perfectly well aware that the Assumption and St. Peter's death at Rome are not expliocitly mentioned in the Bible (though the usual interpretation of that Epistle of St. Peter in which he speaks of writing from Babylon is that he means Rome, not least because there is no evidence at all that Babylon ever laid claim to him in the way that Rome claimed his tomb and Antioch claimed to be founded by him) - the trouble is that by saying these stories "grew up" Harris is consciously or unconsciously suggesting that because they weren't mentioned in the Bible therefore they can't have happened at all. (Saying they are first recorded would leave this an open question.) The texts which I have quoted fall into a completely different category. Where else can the saints in the Apocalypse be but in Heaven? What does St. Paul mean by the crown of glory reserved for the righteous if not life in Heaven? What does St. Paul mean by the race which he exhorts the faithful to run so that they may receive the prize if not the course of life? Who are those who overcome, to whom the promise is made in the Apocalypse, if not those who remain faithful? This board remains open to those who are prepared to argue reasonably and straightforwardly that St. Paul and St. John were mistaken, but to say they did not say what they clearly do say is another matter. Let us take an example. Suppose A says "Franklin D. Roosevelt was the greatest political leader of the twentieth century". B comes along and says "A never says that Franklin D Roosevelt accomplished anything". C points to A's statement, to which B replies that A never explicitly says Roosevelty accomplished anything. What is that except hairsplitting. I admit that liberal catholcis are difficult to pin down and that they do genuinely beleive many things that on the face of it are incompatible with catholicism, but I completely fail to see what Harris is getting at. Perhaps I am suffering from some sort of delusion, so I will make a commitment here. I will allow Harris back if anyone can explain to me how his statement, as applied to the New Testament, can possibly be justified. Inedifix's statement is in a different category because he is talking about the development of the concept of the afterlife within the Bible, not denying that such a concept exists anywhere within it, as Harris seems to me to be doing. Furthermore, Inedifix specifically states that he is an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 23, 2010 10:58:23 GMT
Laffingtiger: I do not claim to be God, as certain atheists on and off this board appear to claim for themselves. As neither I nor any of the Catholic members (for whose benefit this board exists) are God, we do not have infinite resources of time and effort, and we therefore cannot be expected to waste those which we do have on people who are not prepared to engage in honest and straightforward debate. Timewasters and bigots will therefore be expelled. I have not seen anything other than jeers from you so far, so this is your first warning.
|
|
|
Post by laffingtiger on Mar 24, 2010 2:23:04 GMT
Laffingtiger: I do not claim to be God, as certain atheists on and off this board appear to claim for themselves. As neither I nor any of the Catholic members (for whose benefit this board exists) are God, we do not have infinite resources of time and effort, and we therefore cannot be expected to waste those which we do have on people who are not prepared to engage in honest and straightforward debate. Timewasters and bigots will therefore be expelled. I have not seen anything other than jeers from you so far, so this is your first warning. I know that you do not claim to be God but you may, if you wish, "embody" some of the positive attributes of God. Without wasting any more time I would like to examine your first example referencing heaven. You quoted : 1 Thess 4:17-18 " Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." I do not see any reference to either "heaven" or "faithful to God" Can you therefore explain why you made a reference to this passage?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 8, 2010 14:39:03 GMT
Since a couple of atheist posters have claimed on this board that St. Paul says nothing about thelife ofJesus, but only about His resurrection, and they then use this to imply Jesus might not have existed at all, I submit the reading from St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, as read at Mass last Sunday on the feast of Corpus Christi: (chapter 11 verses 24-26)
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
I often feel that I should study the Bible more intensely; if I knew it better I would have caught them out earlier. Perhaps it is too much to ask them to read it before they denounce it?
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jun 8, 2010 15:48:00 GMT
Since a couple of atheist posters have claimed on this board that St. Paul says nothing about thelife ofJesus, but only about His resurrection, and they then use this to imply Jesus might not have existed at all, I submit the reading from St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, as read at Mass last Sunday on the feast of Corpus Christi: (chapter 11 verses 24-26) For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." I often feel that I should study the Bible more intensely; if I knew it better I would have caught them out earlier. Perhaps it is too much to ask them to read it before they denounce it? Oh Hibernicus, I cannot believe you are at this again. Are you really quoting out of context and misrepresenting what people say? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here and hoping you misunderstood what was said by Atheist posters rather than misrepresenting their views. Misrepresenting views is dishonest and we all know thats a sin. Let me set the record straight for once and for all as regards my position. 1. Paul Mentions no miracles save the resurrection 2. Paul never met Jesus the man 3. Paul only mentions the last couple of days of Jesus' existence here on earth and largely ignores all the other stories we learned from later writers in his letters 4. Paul claimed to be communicating with the heavenly Jesus as he never knew the earthly Jesus and as a result most of the information he gives to Christianity comes from the heavenly Jesus and not the individual who lived in 1st century Palestine 5. In my experience a great many Atheists actually DO accept that a figure called Jesus DID exist. I think where our opinions begin to diverge is whether this individual carried out many of the acts attributed to him by later writers 6. It is my understanding that to Paul Jesus' death was the whole point of his life. His whole raison d’etre was to come down here and die for our sins and save us. Therefore he is silent on the many acts Jesus carried out in his life What you have stated above "if I knew it better I would have caught them out earlier" is quite irrelevant and frankly a bit childish. You have proved nothing nor advanced the debate one little bit. Here are the facts….. Paul never met Jesus…. He mentions the last supper, his death and the resurrection. Trying to make out that the above quote you give constitutes Paul talking about Jesus’ other miracles or the events that happened in his life is pretty pathetic Sir. The “facts “we attain regarding Jesus’ life are not given to Christians until much later after the crucifixion (at least 40 years) in the gospels. Paul doesn’t mention the miracles or facts regarding Jesus' life as reported in the gospels. A poor attempt to uncover a smoking gun my friend. Try again. I’m sure if you try hard enough you can prove all the New Testament scholars, who state that Paul doesn’t give us facts about Jesus' life, are in error. Finally I didn’t "denounce" anything as you have stated in your quote above. Shame on you for suggesting I did. I subjected the historicity of the document to an analysis. Does that constitute denouncement in your book Hibernicus? Also, as I have stated many times before, I HAVE read the document (Old Testament and New) on many occasions and so have the New Testament scholars whose work I am quoting as references when I give my answers regarding Jesus. Suggesting I have not, as you do above, does you or your position, no credit at all. Your lack of respect and courtesy to others is, well, quite irritating to be frank.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 14, 2010 17:43:24 GMT
Here's another Pauline reference to Jesus in 1 corinthinas whose significance I only relised when I was browsing in a book on Jeus and Paul - whose title I have unfortunately forgotten. It's in Chapter 7: 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
When St Paul says "not I, but the Lord" is speaking he is citing Jesus' prohibition on divorce Matthew 5:32 & 19:8-9: Mark 10:11-12. Whne he says "I speak, not the Lord" he is indicating that he is stating the practical application of Jesus'words in a specific context. Paul cites Jesus explicitly in 1 Corinthians because the Corinthians were engged in major doctrinal disputes. He does not do so to the same extent elsewhere because he can take his hearers' basic fidelity to Jesus for granted and can concentrate on developing/expounding the message.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 23, 2010 21:26:05 GMT
Although I am far from being an expert on the Bible the more I read of it and the commentaries of others, there emerges a unity within that I never realised before - mainly based on the idea of covenants between God and others - Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and finally through Jesus.
I am sure that this is well documented but it allows the reader to see the Bible from a particular angle, that of God persisting with Man to lead him to a path of salvation. Man is almost as persistent in his ability to break the covenants and stray from God. These ups and downs are like a narrative showing the weakness (and occasional holiness) of Man, God's constant faith in Man and Man's journey towards the ultimate portrayal of compassion in the life and words of Jesus.
James Mackey in his 'Jesus of Nazareth' describes the Bible (in his own slightly opaque theologically style)
The Bible is a self-correcting collection of histories, stories, poems and other fictions (e.g. parables) that record God’s ways with the Cosmos from origin to Eschaton, as revealed in the world and its history both natural and human. It records simultaneously the misunderstandings and downright betrayals that have plagued the continuous creative revelation through all the centuries of its composition, increase, canonisation, transmission, translation and busy interpretation down to the present day...................... .......For the followers of Jesus, his is the prophetic voice par excellence that definitively restores the true revelation of the one, true God from the beginning of creation. And so it is his voice above all that must be recovered from the Bible, from amongst all the other voices whose messages are forever more congenial to our common fallen state.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 1, 2010 10:45:10 GMT
The view that the Bible is structured around a series of covenants does indeed appear to be the key to its interpretation. This is how the Jews read the Old Testament (e.g. they would says the Noahide Covenant binds all mankind, the Abrahamic Covenant binds the descendants of Abraham - the Mosaic Covenant is reserved for the Jews). I regret it took me so long to realise that the Covenants structure the Bible - I only did so when I saw it a few years ago in an Ignatius Press book or on Mark Shea (I forget which). A point which is worth bearing in mind is that the notion of covenant, like that of the Incarnation, implies that God enters into a reciprocal relationship - He makes Himself known. This is an area where we have more in common with Jews than Muslims (the Islamic God does not make a covenant - he declares his will, to which the only appropriate response is submission, through his prophets). I am sorry to say that Assisi has misunderstood James Mackey. It is quite clear from the way in which Mackey uses or rather misuses Scripture that his statement does not reflect the orthodox Christian belief that the Bible is the story of God's self-revelation to mankind, mankind's repeated falling away from God, and God's infinite mercy reaching out to reclaim us. That implies a basic acceptance of the Bible as possessing intrinsic authority. Instead, Mackey is using an exegesis associated with forms of existentialist liberal Protestantism, by which he claims to distinguish between the "prophetic" strand in the Bible, which is always and everywhere good, and what he sees as corruptions which are to be rejected even where the Bible itself approves of them. Let me explain. Orthodox Christianity sees Jesus and through Him the Church as having three attributes - those of prophet, priest, and king - prophet as proclaimer of the Good News, priest as offering himself in sacrifice for our redemption, king as Divine Pantocrator who rules and orders the cosmos. Mackey's view as expressed in his articles in the IRISH TIMES explicitly rejects the idea of Jesus as priest. For him, the idea that suffering can ever be redemptive or that priesthood is ordained by God is a lie used by the holders of power to justify their own sclerotic tyranny; anything in the Bible which presents priesthood favourably is therefore to be rejected by the prophetic voice; when St Paul calls Jesus our High Priest this is not to be reinterpreted (as an orthodox Protestant might) but rejected as a corruption even though it is in the bible. (He makes it quite clear that he is not saying that priesthood can be corrupted - for which there is ample warrant in the Bible as well as in profane history- but that priesthood is itself a corruption). The death of Jesus, in this interpretation, is not a redemptive sacrifice but the senseless murder of a truth-teller. It is also fairly clear, though he is not quite as explicit on this point, that he rejects Jesus as king. He does not believe that Jesus was God or the Son of God in the sense of being more-than human but that he spoke for God as a prophet, and Mackey sees himself and his fellow modernists as prophets in the same sense. This is the logical end-process which began when Luther described thhe epistle of St James as "an epistle of straw" because it contradicted his views on Justification. The interpereter who claims to go by the Bible alone ends up going by himself alone.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Nov 2, 2010 22:41:54 GMT
The view that the Bible is structured around a series of covenants does indeed appear to be the key to its interpretation. This is how the Jews read the Old Testament (e.g. they would says the Noahide Covenant binds all mankind, the Abrahamic Covenant binds the descendants of Abraham - the Mosaic Covenant is reserved for the Jews). I regret it took me so long to realise that the Covenants structure the Bible - I only did so when I saw it a few years ago in an Ignatius Press book or on Mark Shea (I forget which). A point which is worth bearing in mind is that the notion of covenant, like that of the Incarnation, implies that God enters into a reciprocal relationship - He makes Himself known. This is an area where we have more in common with Jews than Muslims (the Islamic God does not make a covenant - he declares his will, to which the only appropriate response is submission, through his prophets). I am sorry to say that Assisi has misunderstood James Mackey. It is quite clear from the way in which Mackey uses or rather misuses Scripture that his statement does not reflect the orthodox Christian belief that the Bible is the story of God's self-revelation to mankind, mankind's repeated falling away from God, and God's infinite mercy reaching out to reclaim us. That implies a basic acceptance of the Bible as possessing intrinsic authority. Instead, Mackey is using an exegesis associated with forms of existentialist liberal Protestantism, by which he claims to distinguish between the "prophetic" strand in the Bible, which is always and everywhere good, and what he sees as corruptions which are to be rejected even where the Bible itself approves of them. Let me explain. Orthodox Christianity sees Jesus and through Him the Church as having three attributes - those of prophet, priest, and king - prophet as proclaimer of the Good News, priest as offering himself in sacrifice for our redemption, king as Divine Pantocrator who rules and orders the cosmos. Mackey's view as expressed in his articles in the IRISH TIMES explicitly rejects the idea of Jesus as priest. For him, the idea that suffering can ever be redemptive or that priesthood is ordained by God is a lie used by the holders of power to justify their own sclerotic tyranny; anything in the Bible which presents priesthood favourably is therefore to be rejected by the prophetic voice; when St Paul calls Jesus our High Priest this is not to be reinterpreted (as an orthodox Protestant might) but rejected as a corruption even though it is in the bible. (He makes it quite clear that he is not saying that priesthood can be corrupted - for which there is ample warrant in the Bible as well as in profane history- but that priesthood is itself a corruption). The death of Jesus, in this interpretation, is not a redemptive sacrifice but the senseless murder of a truth-teller. It is also fairly clear, though he is not quite as explicit on this point, that he rejects Jesus as king. He does not believe that Jesus was God or the Son of God in the sense of being more-than human but that he spoke for God as a prophet, and Mackey sees himself and his fellow modernists as prophets in the same sense. This is the logical end-process which began when Luther described thhe epistle of St James as "an epistle of straw" because it contradicted his views on Justification. The interpereter who claims to go by the Bible alone ends up going by himself alone. I realised after a few chapters that I was getting a new interpretation of Jesus in Mackey's book and feel a little cheated by it all. He basically denies that the miracles were miracles - the feeding of the 5000 was a eucharistic meal where the people were sated by the 'Creator Spirit coursing through' (them). Moreover if you deny the divinity of Jesus don't you basically say that Jesus is telling lies when he answers in the affirmative that he is the Son of God?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 3, 2010 16:28:18 GMT
Actually, that one is fairly easy - you can argue that Jesus meant something other than divinity when He said He was "the son of God". There are certainly passages in the Gospels which can be cited as suggesting Jesus is subordinate to the father, just as there are passages suggesting they are equal - that's why it took so much time, controversy and schism to define the classic Christological doctrines. Mackey's attitude seems to be that evryone is the son or daughter of God in the same sense as Jesus if they would only realise it and shake off their subservience to fossilised ideas and authorities.
Alternately you can say that the "high" Christological passages are later interpolations and were not actually uttered by Jesus, which is what the Jesus Seminar do - basing themselves on the circular reasoning that since Jeus wasn't divine He can't have said He was divine. Essentially Mackey's method amounts to saying that the Gospels mean whatever he in his "prophetic" wisdom wants them to mean, and he is free to discard the bits he doesn't like; they must be inauthentic because he feels them to be inauthentic. He does not of course spell this out explicitly or that would alarm his readers - they must be allowed to fall into the habit gradually.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 25, 2011 12:30:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on May 7, 2012 9:32:33 GMT
A chairde, Dia 's Muire daoibh, I have been reminded, that as a heretic, I should not post on purley Catholic threads, so having found this one, this looks like a good place to introduce what has become one of my hobby-horses. The title: 'The Forgotten Gospel' is intensionally confrontational. The subject, though does not introduce a text from outsiders, gnostic, or otherwise, but a translation, by the wrong person, me, of an old Latin text, working from a German transcription of an Irish manuscript. My website: www.btinternet.com/~daveat168/gives a reasonably scholastic study, with links to the original manuscript where applicable. Why me? Well no-one else would do it. Why am I the 'wrong' person? Well, my Latin prior to the effort was practically nonexistant, and such Latin I have at present is derived purely from this work. What is this 'Forgotten Gospel'? It is a Gospel Harmony. Sievers attributes it to Tatian, via Victor of Capua, who thugh it might be from Ammonius, or hinted that Ammonius and Tatian might be the same, but that he was satisfied that it was an honest and excellent piece of work, and a valuable Gospel Witness, harmonized from the Four without additions or interpolations, and lacking no more than a dozen or so verses of our modern text, not witnessed elsewhere. The beauty of the harmony is that you do not need to trouble yourself to find equivalent passages littered randomly in the other 3 accounts for any subject, because the harmonizer has done that for you, and done it remarkably well. As well as the website, I have produced a printed version of the 'Forgotten Gospel', I have a dozen or so copies if anyone would like a hard copy. I am not trying to sell these. they are 'out of date', the text has had minor alterations since the print date, and the latest version is on my website, and also on Archive.org, dedicated to public domain. archive.org/details/TheForgottenGospelI would welcome criticism, especially of the translation, so that my poor effort may be improved, for I still believe that this is the best evangelical text ever written. Is mise, le meas, Deghebh.
|
|
|
Post by vocoprotatiano on Jun 13, 2012 8:19:14 GMT
Actually, that one is fairly easy - you can argue that Jesus meant something other than divinity when He said He was "the son of God". There are certainly passages in the Gospels which can be cited as suggesting Jesus is subordinate to the father, just as there are passages suggesting they are equal - that's why it took so much time, controversy and schism to define the classic Christological doctrines. Mackey's attitude seems to be that everyone is the son or daughter of God in the same sense as Jesus if they would only realise it and shake off their subservience to fossilised ideas and authorities. Alternately you can say that the "high" Christological passages are later interpolations and were not actually uttered by Jesus, which is what the Jesus Seminar do - basing themselves on the circular reasoning that since Jesus wasn't divine He can't have said He was divine. Essentially Mackey's method amounts to saying that the Gospels mean whatever he in his "prophetic" wisdom wants them to mean, and he is free to discard the bits he doesn't like; they must be inauthentic because he feels them to be inauthentic. He does not of course spell this out explicitly or that would alarm his readers - they must be allowed to fall into the habit gradually. A Hibernicuis, a chara, Actually, Our Lord was not the first to make this claim, as you will find it in the psalms of David. The claim is quite nominatively Jewish, and in that context is totally inoffensive to Judaism. The fiction is that the Jews were offended by this claim. The offence seems to have been that Our Lord, seeing himself so, dedicated himself to the will of the Father to such a degree that he subsumed his own nature, and became, as it were the Avatar of G_D. Now this is NOT a Jewish tradition, or concept, but is definitely Oriental, and foreign to Judaism. However, the 3 kings brought more than physical store from the East, they were not just kings, but WISE men, hence, teachers. Our Lord would have been completely au fait with the concept of AVATAR. As Avatar, of course He speaks, and acts as G_D, not as a robot, but, as the PERSON of G_D, as far as G_D can be represented in this 3 dimensional universe. That is, He was the HUMAN person of G_D, and through him, Humanity saw G_D, and G_D experienced Humanity as a human. The thing to remember, is that throughout Our Lord's teaching, he stated plainly that what he did, was possible, through faith, for ANY human. That is, he made no claim to being in any physical way, extraordinary. Is mise, le meas, Deghebh.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 22, 2012 19:20:28 GMT
For the rest of us on Planet Earth, the passages to which vocoprotiano refers are usually interpreted as meaning that we can become sons of God because Jesus died for us and that we do it through Him, not that we can become divine off our own bat without reference to Him: 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:Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-1:13)
|
|