Different Storytellers

[LittleLes]

[quote name='slywakka250' date='Jul 29 2005, 10:25 PM']Les,

After your post about “true believers”, I thought I would share a little bit about why I believe. 

I agree. Sometimes when I hear things like this, I am tempted to believe that by following the Catholic Church I am following a mass movement blindly with no evidence as to it being a good cause.  However, God has given me the gift of faith, and allowed me to understand that I am not following the dictates of an old and fading movement, I am following Jesus Christ, the eternal and ever living God.  The Church He established guides us to salvation, eternal life.  The Teaching, the rules, and the bible are all to lead us to our last end, which is God. We all desire happiness, and I know that my happiness is found in Christ, and that I can know him by belonging to His Church.

I pray for you that God may grant you the gift of faith. Les, you have impressed me with your knowledge about the Church, and while you may not believe the truth as revealed to us by God through the Church in all aspects, I can tell by the effort you put into your posts here that you are searching for the truth, and I encourage you that if you keep looking and asking God to show you, you will find it.
When I think about it, the reason I believe that the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth at least for me, is as you suggest not primarily because of any intellectual argument or evidence. Sure, I count the faith of the martyrs who have died for their faith, the Church’s endurance through trial and coming out strong, and how the Church seems to have a clear answer to every question I have, helping me in every aspect of my life as evidence, but it wasn’t these things which initially brought me to belief. I think this is different for different people, but I think this has been my experience. .

But foremost I believe because of faith. It is beyond a mere intellectual understanding.  Our faith is founded on a relationship with Jesus Christ. It is the profound experience I have had of Christ in my life that has led me to the Church. It says in the Gospel of John, when Jesus is calling his first disciples,  he says “Come and see,” One of these was the Apostle Andrew, on after spending the afternoon with Jesus finds his brother  Peter and tells him “we have found the Messiah.” In just one afternoon this remarkable change had taken place. It was by getting to know Christ in a personal way by spending time with him that they could recognize him as the Messiah.

I think this starts with prayer and being honest with God.
God Bless

Matt
[right][snapback]664722[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Hi Matt,

There is much truth in what you say.

However, look closely at you first paragraph.

"However, God has given me the gift of faith, and allowed me to understand that I am not following the dictates of an old and fading movement, I am following Jesus Christ, the eternal and ever living God."

So, at the onset, you are saying that you believe by "the gift of faith" not by any intellectual conviction. (God once gave me the gift of faith, too. But I think he took it back because I asked too many questions. : )

And "Sure, I count the faith of the martyrs who have died for their faith, "
If you are using this criteria, have you considered converting to Islamic fundamentalism?

And, "Apostle Andrew, on after spending the afternoon with Jesus finds his brother Peter and tells him “we have found the Messiah.”

But doesn't this contradict Matt 16:17 ?

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. "

So It was Andrew, not God, who first told Peter Jesus was the Messiah. Is that what you are claiming?

LittleLes

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 30 2005, 07:09 AM']But now I'm perfect!
[right][snapback]665037[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So much humility...

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 30 2005, 07:29 AM']"Apostle Andrew, on after spending the afternoon with Jesus finds his brother  Peter and tells him “we have found the Messiah.”
[right][snapback]665040[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Where is this located?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 09:53 PM']RESPONSE:

Obviously this is your opinion. Again, if you have any evidence, please present it.
[right][snapback]664632[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is Mr. Hoffer's opinion as well. Republicanism? Give me a break.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 30 2005, 09:39 AM']Where is this located?
[right][snapback]665184[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

In the New Testament. It's one of those square things you can borrow from the library but which doesn't fit into a VCR. :

More specifically, its found in the first chapter of John's Gospel:

John 1: 40-42 "Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Anointed). Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter). "

So evidently Matthew was wrong about who first revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah. And evidently he was wrong about when Peter had the name change as well. And Matthew's is the only gospel that has Jesus saying that he was going to found a church.

Do you suppose this last claim was wrong too?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 30 2005, 10:21 AM']It is Mr. Hoffer's opinion as well.  Republicanism?  Give me a break.
[right][snapback]665206[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

What are you claiming is Mr. Hoffer's opinion? And are you claiming it is wrong or right?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 30 2005, 11:49 AM']RESPONSE:

What are you claiming is Mr. Hoffer's opinion? And are you claiming it is wrong or right?
[right][snapback]665222[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The book is Mr. Hoffer's opinion. The whole concept is quite complicated and I lack the linguistic sophistication to state my agreements/disagreements with his philosophy. I don't believe his book was aimed at religious people, and I think anyone trying to fit religion into his psychology doesn't "get" religious people at all. Sort of a [i]New York Times[/i] understanding of faithful Christians.

Edited July 30, 2005 by thedude

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 30 2005, 12:54 PM']The book is Mr. Hoffer's opinion.  The whole concept is quite complicated and I lack the linguistic sophistication to state my agreements/disagreements with his philosophy.  I don't believe his book was aimed at religious people, and I think anyone trying to fit religion into his psychology doesn't "get" religious people at all.  Sort of a [i]New York Times[/i] understanding of faithful Christians.
[right][snapback]665314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

But have you read it and do you understand it?

Or is it that you just don't like anything that may question a " party line " and the psychology of those who swear an unquestioning alligience to it?

[Carnanc]

I haven't read the book, though it sounds interesting. I read some reviews and feel like I get the basic idea.

is he suggesting that those who follow a mass movement follow their "party line" with no real evidence to do so?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

If I said you were too caught up in "Hofferism" to see the truth, what would you say?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 30 2005, 10:16 PM']If I said you were too caught up in "Hofferism" to see the truth, what would you say?
[right][snapback]665833[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I'd give your assertion the attention it deserved? : : :

[LittleLes]

[quote name='slywakka250' date='Jul 30 2005, 08:44 PM']I haven't read the book, though it sounds interesting. I read some reviews and feel like I get the basic idea.

is he suggesting that those who follow a mass movement follow their "party line" with no real evidence to do so?
[right][snapback]665789[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

I believe his point is that those who feel that they must unquestionably adhere to a belief system, whatever the belief system, don't necessarily do so out of intellectual conviction.

For some membership in a movement satisfies a psychological need.

The dogma is secondary.

[LittleLes]

An interesting story is told by Matthew 27:45, 51-53

" From noon onward, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. "

"And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many. "

If this were more than just a story, don't you think that some early astronomers somewhere would have recorded the eclipse?

And wouldn't somebody in Jerusalem have recorded all those corpses coming back to life? I wonder what happened to them anyway. Did they just hang around Jerusalem?

I guess we are just suppose to accept this on faith as really happening.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='slywakka250' date='Jul 30 2005, 08:44 PM']I haven't read the book, though it sounds interesting. I read some reviews and feel like I get the basic idea.

is he suggesting that those who follow a mass movement follow their "party line" with no real evidence to do so?
[right][snapback]665789[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes. Unfortunately evidence isn't usually examined. At least not right away.

I must confess, many in my generation, including myself , fell into the type of thinking Hoffer describes.

I'm a Vietnam era veteran. And as "just eighteen, proud, and brave" we became true believers in the party line that we had to halt communist "aggression" in Southeast Asia. But we never investigated the real issues that were involved. We just obeyed authority.

We were told that the war was about stopping to advance of "godless communism" in Vietnam (actually the central issues were self-determination, nationalism, and Buddism; but we didn't realize that at the time). We were fighting to bring democracy and the obvious advantage of western values to the people. That they didn't think in the same terms as we did never entered our minds.

Catholic servicemen even had greater pressure to climb onto the bandwagon. Some of our religious leaders were advocating the same thing. Cardinal Spellman, the Director of the Military Ordinariate, was busy blessing the B-52's and urging us on. (I even got to kiss his ring on one occasion!).

After hundreds of thousands had died and Vietnam was significantly devastated, many of us came to realize that we had seriously misjudged what was involved and simply believed what we had been told.

Ultimately, we lost. And as one correspondent aptly remarked as to the real cause, " We seriouly underestimated the Vietnamese willingness to go on dying for what they believed in."

Ah yes. True believers following the party line. Do you think there is any chance we are making the same mistake again?

[LittleLes]

But leaving a discussion of Eric Hoffer and his "True Believers," we return to the discussion of the Different Storytellers.

There is a contradiction between Luke, the traditional writer of Acts of the Apostles, and Matthew's gospel. This contradiction regards the baptismal formula to be used. Luke four times mentions baptism but it is only in the name of Jesus:

Acts 2:38 Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16
…for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48
He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 19.5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

On the other hand, Matthew gives the formula involving the Trinity:

Matt 28:19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit.

Since the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet evolved - and was the cause of fierce rivalry for several hundred years - it appears that some copyist added the Trinity formula sometime after the doctrine had been established. If this formula was really originally in Matthew, there would have been no controversy.

The Trinity is also be mentioned at 1John 5:7-8, the so-called Johannine comma. But this was an addtion made around the sixth century from the margin of an Old Latin text. Curiously it is still carried in the Douay Rheims Vulgate:

1 John 5: 7-8
And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord. (DR)

But this interpolation has been removed from modern bibles:

1 John 5:7-8
So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.(NAB)

Thus, although there are different stories from different storytellers here, it doesn't appear that the original writer of Matthew was the culprit.