White Knight Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) Instead of posting scripture maybe I sould have went straight to the catechism, I found out this the hard way lol. [b]COMPLETE AND UPDATED [B]CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH[/b][/B] Article 6 [b]"HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN AND IS SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER."[/b] 659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." [b]Christ's body was glorifed at the moment of His Resurrection, as proven by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and premanently enjoys." But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familarly with His disciples and teaches them the about the kingdom, [/b] His glory remains under apparition veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity." Maybe I sould have went to this lol at the start. Edited July 20, 2005 by White Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 19 2005, 01:51 PM']RESPONSE: No. It is claimed by one person that over 500 people saw Jesus before his Ascension. If you held up a bank, were captured, and put on trial and you told the judge that 500 people saw you at some other location than the bank when it was robbed, would you expect the court to rule that 500 persons gave testimony on your behalf? [right][snapback]650041[/snapback][/right] [/quote] In that forty days of being with his Disciples and visiting people before they believed. its possible that it could be more than 500 people. but its safe to say that aleast 500 people saw Him walk around, talk to His disciples, eat with His disciples, etc.. Once again this is just an estimated record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 19 2005, 05:21 PM']It says nothing about the time and date the ascension took place, when they went to outskirts of Bethany, or how long they stayed in that area. But I'm not going to continue arguing with you about this on this thread. This has little to do with White Knight's original question, and you're just once again trying to hijack a thread to push your agenda. [right][snapback]650217[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: If Jesus ascended on the same day of the Resurrection, it has everything to do with White Knight's question! Lk 24: 1 the first day of the week... LK 24: 13 two of them went the same day.... Lk 24: 29 it is almost evening... Lk 24: 33 they rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem. Lk 24:36 and as they spoke, Jesus appeared...spoke... Lk 24: 49-50 and I send a promise of my Father...and he led them as far as Bethany. Sorry, Socrates. It's the same day. Not the 40 days in Acts. And from the New American Bible, the footnote to Lk 24 admits: "In the gospel, Luke recounts the ascension of Jesus on Easter Sunday night, thereby closely associating it with the resurrection. In Acts 1:3, 9-11; 13:31 he historicizes the ascension by speaking of a forty-day period between the resurrection and the ascension. The Western text omits some phrases in Luke 24:51, 52 perhaps to avoid any chronological conflict with Acts 1 about the time of the ascension." This answers White Knight's question. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:14 AM']Instead of posting scripture maybe I sould have went straight to the catechism, I found out this the hard way lol. [b]COMPLETE AND UPDATED [B]CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH[/b][/B] Article 6 [b]"HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN AND IS SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER."[/b] 659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." [b]Christ's body was glorifed at the moment of His Resurrection, as proven by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and premanently enjoys." But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familarly with His disciples and teaches them the about the kingdom, [/b] His glory remains under apparition veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity." Maybe I sould have went to this lol at the start. [right][snapback]650643[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Evidently the American Bishop's (USCC) New American Bible takes issue with the Catechism of the Catholic Church here. Footnote to Lk 24: "In the gospel, Luke recounts the ascension of Jesus on Easter Sunday night, thereby closely associating it with the resurrection. In Acts 1:3, 9-11; 13:31 he historicizes the ascension by speaking of a forty-day period between the resurrection and the ascension. The Western text omits some phrases in Luke 24:51, 52 perhaps to avoid any chronological conflict with Acts 1 about the time of the ascension." Which do you think is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Les, The NAB footnotes are notoriously heterodox on many issues. I've heard that a while ago that then Cardinal Ratzinger was in favor of removing some of the NAB's Imprimaturs. On the other hand, the Catechism is refered to by the Church as a "sure norm" for teaching the faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='thedude' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:20 PM']Les, The NAB footnotes are notoriously heterodox on many issues. I've heard that a while ago that then Cardinal Ratzinger was in favor of removing some of the NAB's Imprimaturs. On the other hand, the Catechism is refered to by the Church as a "sure norm" for teaching the faith. [right][snapback]651089[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Dude, Welcome to LittleLes' World of Make-believe. Les consistently dismisses and trashes the teachings of the Magisterium and the Bible, while holding up the NAB notes and the opinions of heterodox dissenters such as Brown, Curran, Rahnner, etc. as the ultimate and infallable authority of Catholic Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='thedude' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:20 PM']Les, The NAB footnotes are notoriously heterodox on many issues. I've heard that a while ago that then Cardinal Ratzinger was in favor of removing some of the NAB's Imprimaturs. On the other hand, the Catechism is refered to by the Church as a "sure norm" for teaching the faith. [right][snapback]651089[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Really? What else have you "heard"? Evidence please! And who referred to the Catechism as the"sure norm? Again ,evidence please. Interesting teachings hat have appeared in catechism over time might make an interesting thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:28 PM']Dude, Welcome to LittleLes' World of Make-believe. Les consistently dismisses and trashes the teachings of the Magisterium and the Bible, while holding up the NAB notes and the opinions of heterodox dissenters such as Brown, Curran, Rahnner, etc. as the ultimate and infallable authority of Catholic Truth. [right][snapback]651096[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: You forgot to mention that I document with appropriate evidence when necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:28 PM']Dude, Welcome to LittleLes' World of Make-believe. Les consistently dismisses and trashes the teachings of the Magisterium and the Bible, while holding up the NAB notes and the opinions of heterodox dissenters such as Brown, Curran, Rahnner, etc. as the ultimate and infallable authority of Catholic Truth. [right][snapback]651096[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Shouldn't the issue be whether or not Brown, Curren, and Rahner are correct or not in what they say? Not whether on not you like to hear what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:33 PM']And who referred to the Catechism as the"sure norm? Again ,evidence please. [right][snapback]651101[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [u]APOSTOLIC LETTER[/u] [i]LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE[/i]: [quote]With today's promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a "[b]valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion[/b]" and as a "[b]sure norm for teaching the faith[/b]," as well as a "[b]sure and authentic reference text[/b]" for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).[/quote] [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:33 PM']RESPONSE: Really? What else have you "heard"? Evidence please! [right][snapback]651101[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea3.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea3.asp[/url] [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:33 PM']Interesting teachings hat have appeared in catechism over time might make an interesting thread! [right][snapback]651101[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You realize that the Catechism was promulgated in 1997, correct? The English revisions were revisions of the translation to make it more faithful to the original, not a change in content. I don't know what has "appeared" over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='thedude' date='Jul 20 2005, 02:29 PM'][u]APOSTOLIC LETTER[/u] [i]LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE[/i]: [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea3.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea3.asp[/url] You realize that the Catechism was promulgated in 1997, correct? The English revisions were revisions of the translation to make it more faithful to the original, not a change in content. I don't know what has "appeared" over time. [right][snapback]651263[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Thank you for calling to my attention this Apostolic Constitution, a noninfallible letter of Pope John Paul II, claiming that the (new) Catechism of the Catholic Church is "a sure norm for teaching the faith." "659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." Christ's body was glorifed at the moment of His Resurrection, as proven by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and premanently enjoys." But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familarly with His disciples and teaches them the about the kingdom, His glory remains under apparition veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity." If the Pope is correct, then Luke's gospel is wrong as to Jesus ascending on Easter Sunday. Actually, I thought White Knight had raised a valid point. Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus remained on earth for forty days after his Resurrection interacting with his followers and yet nothing of what he said or did was recorded in Acts? I guess the pope thought so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 04:20 PM']RESPONSE: Thank you for calling to my attention this Apostolic Constitution, a noninfallible letter of Pope John Paul II, claiming that the (new) Catechism of the Catholic Church is "a sure norm for teaching the faith." "659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." Christ's body was glorifed at the moment of His Resurrection, as proven by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and premanently enjoys." But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familarly with His disciples and teaches them the about the kingdom, His glory remains under apparition veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity." If the Pope is correct, then Luke's gospel is wrong as to Jesus ascending on Easter Sunday. Actually, I thought White Knight had raised a valid point. Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus remained on earth for forty days after his Resurrection interacting with his followers and yet nothing of what he said or did was recorded in Acts? I guess the pope thought so! [right][snapback]651484[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Since the Gospel of John only has 21 chapters in its the only one of the four Gospels that doesn't mention the Ascension. it picks that up in the first chapter of the Book of Acts. it makes since to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 20 2005, 05:57 PM']Since the Gospel of John only has 21 chapters in its the only one of the four Gospels that doesn't mention the Ascension. it picks that up in the first chapter of the Book of Acts. it makes since to me. [right][snapback]651655[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: I'm afraid I can't follow you reasoning here. Maybe, like the nativity narratives along with the report of a virgin birth which John omits, he didn't believe the Ascension actually occurred. Or perhaps wasn't really important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 I dont see why you dont agree with this. Everyone of the Gospels reports the ascension happened except for John, But the Book of Acts picks up where John Left off. from the Ascension, to theDay of Penecost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 21 2005, 11:58 AM']I dont see why you dont agree with this. Everyone of the Gospels reports the ascension happened except for John, But the Book of Acts picks up where John Left off. from the Ascension, to theDay of Penecost. [right][snapback]652640[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: It's not a question of agreeing or not, I don't understand your argument. What is it that you are asserting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now