Knowing Christ without the Sacred Scriptures

[Paladin D]

[b]Littleles[/b], you have made it evident that you take the Sacred Scriptures (especially the gospels) as being fiction in nature. If that is true, how do you, as a self-claimed "Catholic", answer the following:


1) What do you know about Christ?

2) What does He mean to you?

3) How would you describe your relationship with Him?


It is extremely important and vital that every Catholic answer these questions, because Christ is (or should be) the center of our daily lives.



[b]Note:[/b] Considering you do not recognize the teaching authority of the Magisterium, you wouldn't be able to cite Church documents for your answers.

Edited July 29, 2005 by Paladin D

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 29 2005, 05:34 PM'][b]Littleles[/b], you have made it evident that you take the Sacred Scriptures (especially the gospels) as being fiction in nature.  If that is true, how do you, as a self-claimed "Catholic", answer the following:
1)  What do you know about Christ? 

2)  What does He mean to you?

3)  How would you describe your relationship with Him?
It is extremely important and vital that every Catholic answer these questions, because Christ is (or should be) the center of our daily lives.
[b]Note:[/b] Considering you do not recognize the teaching authority of the Magisterium, you wouldn't be able to cite Church documents for your answers.
[right][snapback]664432[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not being a true believer and although Catholic, not a partaker in the traditional true believer inquisitions, I decline to play your game.

However, if you want to start a legitimate thread on the historical Jesus and what we can know of him, that's different.

And before you continue with your logical flaw of reasoning from the particular to the general without a sufficient data base (called faulty inference), I have not claimed that all scripture is fictional in nature. But it does contain quite a bit of fiction (eg. the nativity narratives in the New Testament). The hard part is to separate the fiction from the historical. But in some cases, it's easy.

However, when one does so, no matter how convincing the evidence, some apologist (which is the top of the heap in true believer circles) will attempt to use a flawed but creative argument to support the party line. And then, of course, claim that he has won. He has to. He can never admit any error no matter what the evidence.

[Aloysius]

can't you just act human here for one second? what do you believe about Christ? how do you define yourself as Catholic? since 100% of your posts are in the debate table, this is the only place we can talk with you... but I'd like to see just once a statement of what you believe and how you believe yourself to be Catholic.

I mean, I've seen you deny the idea that Christ claimed He was God. is He God? if not, who is He? how can you be Catholic without believing Christ is God?

I mean, what Catholic faith do you hold?

no games. just sincerity. inquiring minds want to know.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 10:05 PM']RESPONSE:

Not being a true believer and although Catholic, not a partaker in the traditional  true believer inquisitions,  I  decline to play your game.

However, if you want to start a legitimate thread on the historical Jesus and what we can know of him, that's different.

And before you continue with your logical flaw of reasoning from the particular to the general without a sufficient data base (called faulty inference), I have not claimed that all scripture is fictional in nature. But it does contain quite a bit of fiction (eg. the nativity narratives in the New Testament). The hard part is to separate the fiction from the historical. But in some cases, it's easy.

However, when one does so, no matter how convincing the evidence, some apologist (which is the top of the heap in true believer circles) will attempt to use a flawed but creative argument to support the party line. And then, of course, claim that he has won.  He has to. He can never admit any error no matter what the evidence.
[right][snapback]664644[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


So, you don't know much about Christ in general, [b]nor[/b] what He means to you, [b]nor[/b] your relationship with Him?

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]However, if you want to start a legitimate thread on the historical Jesus and what we can know of him, that's different.[/quote]

Someone who will not plainly state their beliefs is not capable of true dialogue.

[Paladin D]

(Delete)

Edited July 30, 2005 by Paladin D

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 29 2005, 09:31 PM']So, you don't know much about Christ in general, [b]nor[/b] what He means to you, [b]nor[/b] your relationship with Him?
[right][snapback]664664[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

It's interesting to observe how you reach your conclusions. You seem very into "either-or" reasoning. Don't you know such reasoning very frequently yields erroneous results?

In 1939, with communism making such strides in Europe, there was a fear that Germany would become a communist nation. In fact, many German industrialist originally supported Hitler, whom they believed, was at least anticommunist.

One of them was claimed to have said, 'Germany will either become communist or democratic." But, actually neither; it became fascist instead. See the problem with either-or reasoning?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 29 2005, 09:27 PM']can't you just act human here for one second?  what do you believe about Christ?  how do you define yourself as Catholic?  since 100% of your posts are in the debate table, this is the only place we can talk with you... but I'd like to see just once a statement of what you believe and how you believe yourself to be Catholic.

I mean, I've seen you deny the idea that Christ claimed He was God.  is He God?  if not, who is He?  how can you be Catholic without believing Christ is God?

I mean, what Catholic faith do you hold?

no games.  just sincerity.  inquiring minds want to know.
[right][snapback]664663[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

OK, Aloyious. You're on! I actually would have titled this thread differently, but we can go with it as it is.

Lets start with the basics. The answer to the first fundamental question seems self-evident to many, but still we have to start there since there is disagreement on this point.

Question: Did the person Jesus Christ really exist? Or is his existence entirely a legend? (I"ll be betraying my prejudice when I say that I believe that he did. But, to be objective, lets consider the evidence to establish that view).

I do hope that any "true believers" reading this can handle that question objectively and not have to cover their ears and run from the room screaming, "Heresy, heresy...."

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 30 2005, 07:39 AM']RESPONSE:

It's interesting to observe how you reach your conclusions. You seem very into "either-or" reasoning. Don't you know such reasoning very frequently yields  erroneous results?
[right][snapback]665042[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Why is it so hard to answer the questions?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 30 2005, 09:23 AM']Why is it so hard to answer the questions?
[right][snapback]665171[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Because they are "either-or" questions. The appropriate answer for either -or questions is "both or neither." Is that what you want?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 29 2005, 09:32 PM']Someone who will not plainly state their beliefs is not capable of true dialogue.
[right][snapback]664665[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Did you ever encounter those people in high school who would not read the assigned novel but depended on Cliff notes? I think a lot of true believers are like that. :

Still, if you would like an overview, I'll provide it. But keep in mind that this is a "work in progress.' I consider the evidence as it accrues and am not locked into a belief system which prohibits me for accepting it.

(1) I think that Jesus was a historical person. He was an itinerant preacher who believed that he was teaching in the last days before the parousia. "The kingdom of God is at hand, etc." He advocated a return to authentic Judaism and a reasonable observance of Mosaic law. His teaching were not always new. Many can be found in older Jewish writings especially those of the Pharisees. (We would have to debate separately the question of his divine inspiration).

(2) There were a number of claimants of messiahship in Jesus' day. The problem was messiahship was linked to Jewish kingship and restoring the rule to Israel. This wasn't altogether popular with the Roman conquerers who tended to execute such claimants usually by crucifixion for insurrection. That's what happened to Jesus.

(3) Following his death, and remembering his claim (and later Paul's) that he would return within a short time, his apostles and disciples continued to be observant Jews as a sect within mainline Judaism (see Acts).

(4) As this movement grew, more Hellenists (Greeks, some Romans, and even some Jews) joined the sect and brought with them many Greek ideas. Around 80 A.D, the very common belief that important people had virgins for mothers and gods for fathers was applied to Jesus.

(5) And the Jewish honorific title "Son of God" began to be taken literally. (NB. Augustus Caesar's official title was also Son of God).

(6) It's important to note that mainline Judaism had no problem with the early Jewish-Christian sect as long as they remained Torah observant and monotheistic. They had no problem with any claim to messiahship and, in fact, even may have hoped that it was true. But when some (but not all) of Jesus' followers started claiming that Jesus was divine also, that "heresy "quickly ended the relatonship, and the early Christian were expelled from the synagogues. This occurred about 90 A.D., and John's gospel written shortly after that time reports this fact as well. (Did you ever notice that John's gospel and not the three Snoptic Gospels written earlier, claims divinity for Jesus?

(7) With the Roman crushing of the Jewish uprising and dispersal of the Jews, the Jerusalem Christiam movement was destroyed. What survived were a number of other Christian communities. Pauline Christianty became dominant.

Now, back to my original question. Was Jesus a real person? We have to keep an open mind and move step-by-step through this.

[Guest Eremite]

Thank you for stating what you believe.

I would respond, but that would violate my solemnly professed vow never ever to engage LittleLes in a debate, for various and sundry reasons.

But others are welcome to do so, should it not betray their oaths.

:

[LittleLes]

I should have stated this in my last post. To avoid getting into those meaningless "Everybody knows...." "It's a proven fact..." I can't help but believe..." types of spurious arguments, let point out at the onset:

It is always the case that the burden of proof weighs upon those making the assertion. If someone claims something, they must supply adequate evidence.

I like my example of the "tradition" of St. Peter living in Brooklyn and having a halo.

I could then claim that "everybody knows this tradition and it has been believed from the time of the Apostles." Moreover, since nothing in the New Testament says this isn't so, it must be true! Therefore, everybody has to believe this, don't they? And they are not good Catholics and going straight to hell it they don't, right?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 30 2005, 12:26 PM']RESPONSE:

Did you ever encounter those people in high school who would not  read the assigned novel but depended on Cliff notes? I think a lot of true believers are like that. :

Still, if you would like an overview, I'll provide it.  But keep in mind that this is a "work in progress.' I consider the evidence as it accrues and am not locked into a belief system which prohibits me for accepting it.

(1)  I think that Jesus was a historical person. He was an itinerant preacher who believed that he was teaching in the last days before the parousia. "The kingdom of God is at hand, etc."  He advocated a return to authentic Judaism and a reasonable observance of Mosaic law. His teaching were not always new. Many can be found in older Jewish writings especially those of the Pharisees. (We would have to debate separately the question of his divine inspiration).

(2) There were a number of claimants of messiahship in Jesus' day. The problem was messiahship was linked to  Jewish kingship and restoring the rule to Israel. This wasn't altogether popular with the Roman conquerers who tended to execute such claimants usually by crucifixion for insurrection. That's what happened to Jesus.

(3) Following his death, and remembering his claim  (and later Paul's) that he would return within a short time, his apostles and disciples continued to be observant Jews as a sect within mainline Judaism (see Acts). 

(4) As this movement grew, more Hellenists (Greeks, some Romans, and even some Jews) joined the sect and brought with them many Greek ideas.  Around 80 A.D, the very common belief that important people had virgins for mothers and gods for fathers was applied to Jesus.

(5) And the Jewish honorific title "Son of God" began to be taken literally. (NB. Augustus Caesar's official title was also Son of God).

(6) It's important to note that mainline Judaism had no problem with the early Jewish-Christian sect as long as they remained Torah observant and monotheistic.  They had no problem with any claim to messiahship and, in fact, even may have hoped that it was true.  But when some (but not all) of Jesus'  followers started claiming that Jesus was divine also, that "heresy "quickly ended the relatonship, and the early Christian were expelled from the synagogues. This occurred about 90 A.D., and John's gospel written shortly after that time reports this fact as well. (Did you ever notice that John's gospel and not the three Snoptic Gospels written earlier, claims divinity for Jesus?

(7) With the Roman crushing of the Jewish uprising and dispersal of the Jews, the Jerusalem Christiam movement was destroyed. What survived were a number of other Christian communities. Pauline Christianty became dominant.

Now, back to my original question. Was Jesus a real person? We have to keep an open mind and move step-by-step through this.
[right][snapback]665236[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



From your own mouth you have rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ, further proving the fact that you are not a Catholic in any way, shape, or form. Some of the most heterdox Catholics I know even acknowledge Jesus's divinity, you on the other hand, do not. You are only posing as a "Catholic" in a desperate attempt to gain credibility, and/or to mock the very faith that has stood for 2,000 years. You my friend, are a [b]poser[/b].

If a suspended, and discharged U.S. Army soldier proclaimed that he was still a soldier of the Army, he would not only look rather arrogant and foolish, but also stupid. Your case pretty much parallels with his.

Your own self-constructed, secular humanistic, "theological" doctrine is not only dangerous, but a masterpiece of error.

Have a nice day.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 30 2005, 12:04 PM']Thank you for stating what you believe.

I would respond, but that would violate my solemnly professed vow never ever to engage LittleLes in a debate, for various and sundry reasons.

But others are welcome to do so, should it not betray their oaths.

:
[right][snapback]665277[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

But I think we all know the reason. You lose.