Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy can't they both be true? There is practically nothing about JC
Actually, there are two versions of the Jesus in India story. The first states that he was in India between the ages of 19 and 29 and is based on the apparent similarity between Christ's words and Buddhist tenets. The other version is the one you're relating here. Surely it is extremely unlikely that both are simultaneously true!
in the early years, couldn't it be he was there as a youngster
and copped the teachings, came to Jerusalem like a whirlwind and
did his thing there, then got "crucified" then split back to what he knew
but now he starts monastaries on the way back. Remember, the
whole jesus thing in Jerusalem was only a few years total, so why not?
Originally posted by NemesioI would suspect that, just as they take the Scriptures metaphorically, they would take the fifth article metaphorically; that is, He rose, but in a figurative sense in the hearts of people to form the Body of Christ which is His Church. The third day would signify the awakening of belief in Christ in the hearts of the faithful.
I assume you mean the Nicene Creed, right?
Is the fifth: Rising on the third day according to the Scriptures...
and the twelfth: And the Life of the world to come...?
I would suspect that, just as they take the Scriptures metaphorically, they would take
the fifth article metaphorically; that is, He rose, but in a figurative sense in the hearts
of ...[text shortened]... ave to do with this. Did you mean the 11th, the
'Resurrection of the body,' part?
Nemesio
If the denomination they are a part of allows such an interpretation, then I suppose that's alright. But if it does not, then there is something fundamentally dishonest about such an action. After all, if a person is pro-whaling, he shouldn't be a part of Greenpeace, should he?
Whatever else I might think about Luther and Calvin, I admire the fact that these individuals were willing to stand up for their beliefs.
Originally posted by sonhouseI didn't say it was impossible, just that it's unlikely.
Why can't they both be true? There is practically nothing about JC
in the early years, couldn't it be he was there as a youngster
and copped the teachings, came to Jerusalem like a whirlwind and
did his thing there, then got "crucified" then split back to what he knew
but now he starts monastaries on the way back. Remember, the
whole jesus thing in Jerusalem was only a few years total, so why not?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI saw both tombs in Jerusalem proported to belong to Jesus,
Could still be in that tomb Joseph bought, though. 😉
one in the old city has a nice flurry of business around it.
The other on the hillside with the rock formation looking like a goat
I think has only a few visiters. Both sites reek with ancientness
thats for sure. Its amazing the power of suggestion, my Lutheran
upbringing caused a surge of emotion when I entered the tomb
with all the faldarah and priests around, couldn't even identify the
emotions but they were strong. The priests thought I was in the
middle of an epiphany and gave me these understanding looks
but there were too many emotions swirling around at once for it
to be called an epiphanistic experience, part dismay at the
pagentry going on, part 'what if this is it for real' part trying to sort
out what is actually going on inside my head. For sure there were
left over programming from my church days boiling around.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHaving spoken with more than a few of these folks, I can tell you that they see the
If the denomination they are a part of allows such an interpretation, then I suppose that's alright. But if it does not, then there is something fundamentally dishonest about such an action. After all, if a person is pro-whaling, he shouldn't be a part of Greenpeace, should he?
problem as a clerical one. That is, they feel that the denomination errs in the
matter of non-permissive interpretation.
It is not unlike the number of Roman Catholics who are in favor of contraception or
women priests, say. They simply feel that the Holy Spirit is calling the Church to
change through them, the Body of Christ, and that their presence is a necessary part
of bringing that call into action, that it would be dishonest to not be a part of it,
to give up on the Church which, in other matters, brings them to a closer relationship
with the Divine.
Nemesio
"The safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts."
- C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Originally posted by Nemesio
Having spoken with more than a few of these folks, I can tell you that they see the problem as a clerical one. That is, they feel that the denomination errs in the matter of non-permissive interpretation.
Which should not pose a problem to many Western Christians. After all, they are never too far from a denomination that does share their views. Unless ...
It is not unlike the number of Roman Catholics who are in favor of contraception or women priests, say. They simply feel that the Holy Spirit is calling the Church to change through them, the Body of Christ, and that their presence is a necessary part of bringing that call into action, that it would be dishonest to not be a part of it, to give up on the Church which, in other matters, brings them to a closer relationship with the Divine.
... the church/denomination is part of their psychological and socio-cultural identity. This would happen with the more "traditional" Churches and denominations (Catholic, Orthodox and perhaps Anglican/Episcopelian, Baptist, Lutheran etc.) As a friend of mine, talking about "cafeteria Catholics", puts it - "They want the ritual without the Catholicism."
How do they (the people you have spoken to) distinguish between issues that are "clerical" and those that are fundamental (or 'peripheral' and 'substantial' - to use the terminology from another thread)? If the denomination errs in the matter of non-permissive interpretation, then are conflicting interpretations (e.g. "Jesus literally rose from the dead" vs. "Jesus did not literally rise from the dead" ) both correct? Or are they saying that their interpretation is correct, while the denomination is teaching plain error? Or are they saying it does not matter whether you are right or not on the issue?
If the Resurrection and Divinity of Jesus are clerical issues, then what do they consider fundamental issues? The existence of Christ? The existence of God? Is there any matter on which they feel the denomination is justified in holding that a particular interpretation is "non-permissive"?
It is interesting that you should bring up the examples of contraception and ordination of women as both are matters on which the Pope has spoken ex cathedra (Paul VI in Humanae Vitae and John Paul the Great in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis respectively). Now, it is possible that some of these Catholics are not aware that the Popes have spoken on the matter (I didn't realise that Popes even issued theological documents until I was in my late teens). Even if they are, they may not be aware that the Pope has spoken ex cathedra on the matter. And, even if they are aware of both, they may not be aware that both these have been part of the constant teaching of the Church throughout its history - going back to the Apostolic era. So there is ground for excusing some of these Catholics on the basis of their ignorance - assuming that they would change their views if they knew these facts.
The idea that the Holy Spirit calls on people to reform the Church from within is not new - this is the same drive that compelled many of the great Saints - Francis, Dominic, Anthony of Padua, Bl. Mother Theresa etc. None of these saints, however, have ever questioned a doctrinal teaching or the moral authority of the Church. Even Catholics with the barest formation are aware of this.
In contending that their views stem from the Holy Spirit, the heterodox Catholics you speak of assert that the Holy Spirit is not acting through the Church on the matter, that the Church is in error. How do they know that it is the Holy Spirit acting through them? They are also aware that the leaders of the Reformation - Luther, Calvin et. al. - made similar claims. Why were they in error? The same claim is made by the Mormons. Why are they in error? What differentiates the claims of these Catholics from the claims of the Reformation-ists and the Mormons?
When they say that, in "other matters", the Church brings them closer to God, what are they referring to? Since they disagree with the Church on some doctrinal issues, are they referring to other matters of doctrine (say, the divinity of Christ or the salvation through the crucifixion)? How do they know the Church is right at all on these other matters? How do they view other "Christians" who dispute these? If it is not the doctrines of the Church that bring them closer to God, then what else? The liturgy? The music? The Cathedrals? The social links that go with being Catholic?
That is why I argue that, despite the good intentions of these people, their actions are dishonest. Because, in doing so, they apprehend to themselves that very infallibility (on the matter) that they deny the Church - and they know it.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSomehow I never saw this reply!
"The safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts."
- C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Originally posted by Nemesio
Having spoken with more than a few of these folks, I can tell you that they see the problem as a clerical one. Tha ...[text shortened]... themselves that very infallibility (on the matter) that they deny the Church - and they know it.
Bump for me for later!
This just in:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553349481/002-4567491-4679234?v=glance
Wherein it is written "Another Roadside Attraction brings together four complex characters in a hot dog stand/bug zoo in the Northwest. The uncomfortable arrival of a famous corpse forces the group to plunge into deep thought on the function of faith, spin and power in our society."
Actually, that's from a review.
Of course it's fiction but a pretty funny book.(Won't appeal to Fundies)
Originally posted by telerionTHE POINT IS NOT TO JUST READ THE BIBLE, BUT TO UNDERSTAND IT. UNDERSTANDING SPIRITUAL MATTERS REQUIRES THE LORD'S HELP. THIS MEANS PRAYER IS INVOLVED. THE LORD GIVES UNDERSTANDING AND WISDOM, TO SOMEONE WITH A HUMBLE HEART.
Smug and presumptious. Not atypical of fundies. Anyway I have read the entire Bible (66 book version) several times. I can testify that it does not have all the answers, though my dissertation would be a much simpler task if it did.
