7 Step Reason to be Catholic II; Revitalizing Faith in the Wake of Scandal and Dissent

Coming Home Network ^ | Jerome D. Gilmartin

[SoothingDave]

Silly. When all that happens the person would know Jesus. Of course he would know His name.

So God always reveals Himself as an intellectual knowledge, never as just a spiritual presence, force, or being? Knowing God is an intellectual thing, and results in instant knowledge of His Name?

Interesting day. I reckon there is not much asectism in Calvinism.

SD

[SoothingDave]

John 1:12 "But as many as received him [JESUS], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name [JESUS]."

No "except..." here either, SD.

Hello? That is the "except." LOL

I thought it was "none are good, no one none at all, nobody." Now we find that some can be considered good.

(Or is it that goodness is not a requirement for entry into Heaven?)

SD

[Ex-Wretch]

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. (John 10:14)

Are you His? What is His name?

Interesting theory. So everyone gets knocked off his horse.

Friend, many are called but few are chosen. Many know what they are called to do but do not yield and do it. To those that yield and experience the mighty moving of God in their lives ... well, yes it is a bit of "knocked off your horse" experience.

You make God sound somewhat vain. I don't think that was your intent. God will get His glory, He doesn't covet it.

Covet? No. Desire? Yes. God is also a jealous God.

Isa.42:8
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

I'm afraid I don't follow. You think that God, by His nature, has to make Himself known by name as you describe above? Again, an interesting theory, but I don't agree.

There is much we don't agree on. However, do you know of any artist that doesn't identify his work? How much more the God of all creation? He will always leave his imprint on His work.

[Wrigley]

Good grief, how is Jesus revealed to us? One way is by his Word.

[Quester]

You think that God, by His nature, has to make Himself known by name as you describe above?

Think of it this way Dave ... when you met your lovely wife, ... was it important to you that, ... at some point, she knew your name ?

[ultima ratio]

"I'm sorry, but that is clearly overlaying an ancient text with a modern concept that at the time of their writing didn't exist. One could say the exact same thing about numerous other ancient stories of the either the fantastic or semi-fantastic."

You completely miss my meaning. I am not extrapolating from the present to the past. I am saying the modern concept at the time of their writing didn't exist--just as you say. Yet the writing is realistic. The psychology of the situation is dead-on. No such texts or anything similar appear in fiction until the nineteenth century. Only journalistic veracity can account for it.

Here, read it yourself:
____________________________________________________________
The neighbors therefore, and those who saw that he was blind before, said, "Isn’t this he who sat and begged?" Others were saying, "It is he." Still others were saying, "He looks like him."

He said, "I am he."

They therefore were asking him, "How were your eyes opened?"

He answered, "A man called Jesus made mud, anointed my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash.’ So I went away and washed, and I received sight."

Then they asked him, "Where is he?"

He said, "I don’t know."

They brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees. It was a Sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight.

He said to them, "He put mud on my eyes, I washed, and I see."

Some therefore of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath."

Others said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?"
There was division among them.

Therefore they asked the blind man again, "What do you say about him, because he opened your eyes?"

He said, "He is a prophet."

The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight, and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?"

His parents answered them, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but how he now sees, we don’t know; or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself."

His parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if any man would confess him as Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.

Therefore his parents said, "He is of age. Ask him."

____________________________________________________________

It has the ring of truth. The pharisees demanding answers, the blind man saying, "All I know is he told me to put mud on my eyes and wash and I did and now I can see." The pharisees getting increasingly annoyed, starting to call him names, finally calling in the parents who don't want to get in trouble and get a little surly in the bargain.

[Pahuanui]

You completely miss my meaning.

Apparantly I must have.

I am not extrapolating from the present to the past. I am saying the modern concept at the time of their writing didn't exist--just as you say. Yet the writing is realistic. The psychology of the situation is dead-on. No such texts or anything similar appear in fiction until the nineteenth century. Only journalistic veracity can account for it.

You many want to avail yourself to many of the Buddhist texts. It is reasonable to posit that the two traditions spread quite rapidly in part due to the supreme simplicity of their respective natures, and how those were represented in their texts. They are essentially the same in style. However, it is, IMO, overreaching to state that 'only journalistic veracity' can account for it.

Although I consider it wasteful and inefficient to post line after line of sacred texts here (not that you are doing so), here:

Subhuti said: "If I understand correctly, one who wishes to reach perfect wisdom should study the way things are in the world and should practice the perfections fully and in depth, but should not believe them to be ultimately real, nor should he make concepts and doctrines out of them."

The Buddha replied: "Just so, Subhuti. The one who contemplates existence in this way knows the nature of the conditioned and of the unconditioned and makes himself an expert in pointing out the truth to others, both with words and without words."

Subhuti asked: "But is this just for the wise and the intelligent?"

"No, indeed," replied the Buddha. "This is open to all, even to the dull witted and to those who can't pay attention. The door is open to anyone who wants to tread this path--but not to the person who is lazy and indifferent."

As an aside:
Q: Do you know why the Buddha cannot vacuum the corners ?
A: Because his vacuum cleaner does not have attachments ...

[ultima ratio]

Your posting proves my point. What you cite from the Buddhist texts might have been a dialogue out of Plato or any other ancient philosophic writing. Dialogues of this sort were not uncommon.

Notice the difference, though. In the Gospel text of John there is a psychological subtext--the initial confusion of the neighbors who recognize the man who had been a blind beggar but was now fully sighted. We can sense their struggle to understand what has happened: "It certainly looks like him but now he can see."

Then there is the aggressive hostility of the authorities who are already exercised enough about Jesus without this further disturbance. They immediately latch on to a technicality: the cure was performed on the Sabbath.

There is the shrug-of-the-shoulders response, "All I know is he put mud on my eyes and told me to wash and now I can see." In other words--"Figure it out for yourself, I can't. But it happened just the same."

Then there is the internal bickering and confusion among the pharisees themselves, some even tending to side with Jesus. In their frustration they send for the parents who are wary of their authority.

When the parents are grilled, they throw the ball back in the Pharisees' court. They admit their son was born blind, but that's about it. "We don't know anything about it. Ask him yourself, he is of age."

What is stunning is the psychological dimension, the play of characters, the authenticity of the colloquial speech and situation, the way even the humble parents are assertive personalities, yet without going over the line and bringing censure on themselves. This is all very authentic-sounding and hard to imagine as fiction.

The Gospel writers, remember, were not sophisticated literary men--except perhaps for Luke. John is simple and straight-forward. In fact, John's Gospel is further supported by his telling of the Passion. Excavations in modern times have indicated the architectural details of Pilate's Praetorium were accurately depicted.

[ultima ratio]

Here is the Buddhist text on the birth of Buddha:
___________________________________________________________
Mindful and conscious the Bodhisattva stayed in the Tushita body.

Mindful and conscious the Bodhisattva descending from the Tushita body entered the womb of his mother.

When the Bodhisattva descended from the Tushita body, there appeared a great splendour surpassing the divine majesty of the gods. The universe of ten thousand worlds shook and quaked.

As other women give birth to children sitting of lying low, not so the Bodhisattva's mother. She gave birth to Bodhisattva standing. When the Bodhisattva was born, first the gods took him and then men.

As soon as the Bodhisattva was born he stood on the earth and took even steps, saying 'I am the best in the world. This is my last existence. I will have no birth again.
____________________________________________________________


Now here is the text from Luke:
____________________________________________________________

Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, 5 in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. (NASB)

____________________________________________________________

Notice how the text from Luke is rooted in the historical context. This is radically different from the "shaking of ten thousand worlds" of the Buddhist text, which is clearly and unambiguously imaginative. The whole feel is essentially and radically different. The Buddha is primarily a metaphysical ideal. Christ was an actual human being born in a real historical context, crucified by real authorities, cited in the texts of real pagan and Jewish historians.

[SoothingDave]

Good grief, how is Jesus revealed to us? One way is by his Word.

We were (at lest I was) discussing the instances where God would elect someone in a culture where he remained ignorant of the Word. A native on an unknown island that has had no contact with the outside.

The fact that God reveals Himself through the Bible has little impact where there are no Bibles, right?

Your position, it seems, is that God will not elect anyone in a culture without a chance to read the Bible. I happen to think God can elect whomever He wants.

SD

[SoothingDave]

You think that God, by His nature, has to make Himself known by name as you describe above?

Think of it this way Dave ... when you met your lovely wife, ... was it important to you that, ... at some point, she knew your name ?

So wha are you saying? That God always reveals Himself to a person with an intellectual knowledge of His Name? OR that God will only elect people who are in cultures where the Bible is? That if you are in an unchurched place, you are automatically screwed and God will never choose to elect such a person?

SD

[Quester]

So wha are you saying? That God always reveals Himself to a person with an intellectual knowledge of His Name? OR that God will only elect people who are in cultures where the Bible is? That if you are in an unchurched place, you are automatically screwed and God will never choose to elect such a person?

As you noted with the reference to Saul/Paul's conversion (i.e. getting knocked off your horse), ... God doesn't need our (human) involvement to make Himself known to a person.

It appears that it usually happens that way, ... but, not always.

[SoothingDave]

As you noted with the reference to Saul/Paul's conversion (i.e. getting knocked off your horse), ... God doesn't need our (human) involvement to make Himself known to a person.

Yes, but is it always an intellectual knowledge of a name? Can't it just be guidance, a presence? Abraham got up and followed the god who talked to him. He didn't ask for a name.

SD

[Quester]

Yes, but is it always an intellectual knowledge of a name? Can't it just be guidance, a presence? Abraham got up and followed the god who talked to him. He didn't ask for a name.

It's true that's it's not recorded that Abraham ever asked God for His name. But Moses did ... and God did not hesitate to tell Moses His name.

Further, it's quite evident that the name of JESUS figures prominently in the New Testament accounts. It is clear that there are no accounts of any New Testament believers who remained unfamiliar with the name of JESUS.

[SoothingDave]

It's true that's it's not recorded that Abraham ever asked God for His name. But Moses did ... and God did not hesitate to tell Moses His name.

That's one school of thought. The other is that God did not so much tell Moses His Name as much as He chastised Moses for asking. It's all in the way you look at it.

Further, it's quite evident that the name of JESUS figures prominently in the New Testament accounts. It is clear that there are no accounts of any New Testament believers who remained unfamiliar with the name of JESUS.

I agree. Which, I guess for the sola Christian, ends the discussion. I am often puzzled why those who limit themselves to only what is revealed explicitly between the covers question those who speculate about the meaning of what is within.

It's the old "explicit bersus implicit" argument.

SD