Never forget that professor lane is continually reminding us to not "accept what he is saying as "truth" For example those of you inclass last Thursday who were shaken up by finding out that "virgin"was not in the Hebrew manuscripts. And those of you who were shaken about the gospels. I bet it sounded to you as if there was an unreasonably long period between Jesus and the writings of the gospel. Or that Mary magdalene may not be who you were taught she was. Everything is not as obscure as you think and there is always multiple sides to every story. This rings true especially for a Catholic. In no way do i intend to share a deep and thorough response in any of these categories, im just going to throw some things out there as "food for thought"
The gospels
Catholics have something called "Sacred Tradition" Included in this tradition is Oral tradition which has preserved the core meaning ofthe gospels. For example you may have understood by the professors statement that Paul, who wrote 50% of the new testament ( a man who never even seen Jesus) can possibly be responsible for the bulk of Christian beliefs. Well, We know as Catholics through sacred tradition that the Apostles and those that studied under them known as the "Early church" fathers preserved and consistently taught the same things that we find in the Gospels. For example some of the Gospel writers such as John, taught early church fathers such as Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. So there isn't this huge vast gaping hole of information that you may have probably thought there was.The core of information is preserved for a Catholic.
Oral tradition was vital in Jewish culture and it has been passed on in the Catholic Church. For example the Olivet discourse in which Jesus forewarns the destruction of the Jewish temple (manyRapturists and Dispensationalist mistakenly interpret this to be ateaching of the End of the world) was passed on correctly in Scripture. How do we know this? We know this because Christianity Exists! If his followers didn't understand and believe Jesus they would have been killed during the siege of Jerusalem, which is also when the temple was destroyed. If you believed Jesus was the Messiah, and if you believed what Jesus said then you showed your Faith withyour Feet. You left Jerusalem and hid, and by doing so, you saved your life, as it was a massacre for many who remained during the siege between 68-70 a.d.
Mary Magdalene,
The cause of confusion over the identity of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels is rooted in two main factors. One being there is more than one "Mary" in the gospels and Two there are many unnamed women in the gospels. So to make a long story short, In the Catholic faith the church is well aware of this fact. Since the beginning Mary has been revered as "Apostle of apostles" The identity of the unnamed women in the gospels was believed to have possibly been her by different people since the beginning of the church. There has been arguments presented that she was demeaned specifically in the Homily of Pope Gregory I known as "Homily 33" in which he stated "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark and what did these seven devils signify, if not the vices?" Further reading of this homily shows no evidence of Mary Magdalene being demeaned rather revered and an example of a repentant sinner rising as "Apostle toapostles" an inspiration and an example for people to reflect on their own sinful ways. (remember the apostles were hiding while she went to the tomb)
The Bottom line. We don't know exactly if she was any of the unamed women. She could have been. the Catholic Church knows this and always has been aware of the possibilities. A faithful Catholic need not have their faith shaken by this. Remember investigate to get the full perspective. (in no way have I presented it here)
Lets move on to Isaiah.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
It is well known that the Greek Septuagint translated the words "young woman" as Virgin but this in no way takes away from the messianic prophecy. How so? In short you could say they were synonyms in the Jewish culture. Remember professor lanes explanation of the "Camel walking through and Eye of a needle" We are quick to imagine a Camel walking through an actual sewing needle because its what we are familiar with now. Professor lane gave two alternate examples. The frizzy thread and the Camels that were walking through the thin walkway known as "the needle". You can apply this same understanding as well to Isaiah and the differing translations.Culturally for us now it would be strange for me to refer to your little sister ages 12-14 as a "Virgin" but technically, and(hopefully should would be)it would be true to assume that. So it wouldn't be wrong for me to refer to her as such. Even more can be said for the Jewish culture at that time. A young woman was basically the Same as a "Virgin" This doesn't prove that the Prophecy of the Messiah is true. It just shows that the term translated as young woman and Virgin doesn't really debunk anything. (by the way this is a very small and informal argument, books have been written regarding this topic I do not intend to write one here.)
However I'm still going to take Professor Lanes "Messiah prophecy"debunking a bit farther. Many christians are also surprised to find out that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was already fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah! Don't believe me? You only need to read a bit further in order to know for certain that it was.
"Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." Isaiah 8:3-4 (NIV)
Without going into further detail about it. (and I can) this prophecy was fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah. However, from a Catholic perspective we know that "An event can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is, we need to consider the entire historical context of the events to receive a full and complete understanding."
Further arguments can be made from Isaiah 9:7
"Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this."
Many question, "Where is this kingdom? There isn't one so Jesus couldn't have possibly fulfilled this prophecy!."
The fact that Isaiah 7:14 is rendered "young woman", "Virgin"or "young maiden" shouldn't make a Catholic flinch for the reasons I stated earlier. And as for the "kingdom" by being a Catholic you wake up in that Kingdom everyday in the Catholic church.
Remember to investigate your faith. Fire every single skeptical missile you have at it and if its real it will stand. Investigate all the information so that you will know for certain as much as you can about any given topic or something stated as fact. In the end we dont truly know and we will never in our lifetime unlock the secret of the universe. It always comes to faith at some point. But theres nothing wrong with testing as many facts as you can against that faith. After all if there is "God" he just might meet us somewhere in this earthly life during our investigation.
Investigate! Don't just Kneel and drink professor Lanes "Kool aid"! =P
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Jainism Extremism and some other ism’s
I was thinking more about extremist ideas as they relate tofundamentalism in religion. It seems that all extremism andfundamentalism really do is defeat the religion it is representing atits Core. Its root. For example, Jainism in its extremefundamentalist form does the exact opposite of what it sets out to bein the first place. "Compassion for all life, human and non-human" isa central belief in Jainism yet when it is practiced in its extremeform it becomes self-defeating. In order to preserve the "living"down to the smallest organism in such an extreme manner you causemore damage than you try to prevent. For example, avoiding lightsfrom video cameras, or even avoiding eating mostly all types of foodyou end up destroying the most important living thing. Your "humanself" You destroy a central doctrine by taking it to the extreme. Soit becomes a double edged sword so to speak. It dies at the root,never really having a chance to grow. We see this same repeating ideawhen anyone takes a Religion in an extreme fundamentalist approach.
Professor Lane spoke in an earlier class about "licking Jesus" whenhis communion instructor informed him that "Jesus didn't want to bechewed." Now the Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith but bydoing that, professor lanes teacher completely undermined, ignoredand stripped the Eucharist of its true meaning by bringing upsomething that is pretty much irrelevant to the true meaning of theEucharist to a Catholic. So because this person went about it in anextreme way he destroyed it at the root. Didn't allow it to grow.
Another example would be Islam "The religion of Peace" at what point does that equate with suicide bombings and killing others in order to force your peaceful religion on to others? And again with "Biblealone Christian fundamentalists" It is designed to take Christianity back to its supposed true fundamentals using the idea of "SolaScriptura" (Latin for Bible alone) yet at the very heart of thatdoctrine we know it is self defeating as Professor lane explained in class last Thursday. There wasn't even a Clear and universal New Testament until the 4th Century! Not only is that a glaring inconsistency but we also know that the Bible itself nowhere says that the "bible alone" should be the sole rule of authority forChristians. This idea was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Again because of the extremism of the people thatdecided to take Protestant Christianity too far they ultimatelydefeat it at its core.
I realize I have made some blanket statements here, but basically mypoint is that when you take a religion to its extreme fundamentals, you basically kill it at its root. You black out what is probably supposed to be its shining point by either taking it too far or misrepresenting it.
It can even be argued that by taking a religion to its fundamental root, you possibly can even make it clear that it just doesn't work,therefore can't be true. That's another possibility and a subject foran entirely new Post.
Thoughts?
Professor Lane spoke in an earlier class about "licking Jesus" whenhis communion instructor informed him that "Jesus didn't want to bechewed." Now the Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith but bydoing that, professor lanes teacher completely undermined, ignoredand stripped the Eucharist of its true meaning by bringing upsomething that is pretty much irrelevant to the true meaning of theEucharist to a Catholic. So because this person went about it in anextreme way he destroyed it at the root. Didn't allow it to grow.
Another example would be Islam "The religion of Peace" at what point does that equate with suicide bombings and killing others in order to force your peaceful religion on to others? And again with "Biblealone Christian fundamentalists" It is designed to take Christianity back to its supposed true fundamentals using the idea of "SolaScriptura" (Latin for Bible alone) yet at the very heart of thatdoctrine we know it is self defeating as Professor lane explained in class last Thursday. There wasn't even a Clear and universal New Testament until the 4th Century! Not only is that a glaring inconsistency but we also know that the Bible itself nowhere says that the "bible alone" should be the sole rule of authority forChristians. This idea was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Again because of the extremism of the people thatdecided to take Protestant Christianity too far they ultimatelydefeat it at its core.
I realize I have made some blanket statements here, but basically mypoint is that when you take a religion to its extreme fundamentals, you basically kill it at its root. You black out what is probably supposed to be its shining point by either taking it too far or misrepresenting it.
It can even be argued that by taking a religion to its fundamental root, you possibly can even make it clear that it just doesn't work,therefore can't be true. That's another possibility and a subject foran entirely new Post.
Thoughts?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
When Fundamentalism drowns out Reality…
"The Church of Rome denies the finished work of Christ but believes in the continuing sacrifice that produces such things as sacraments and praying for the dead, burning candles, and so forth. All of these were borrowed from mystery Babylon, the mother of all pagan customs and idolatry, none of which is taught in the New Testament."
-Tim LaHaye
I like the point that the Professor brought up in class when we were learning about Hinduism. He brought up the point of judging and jumping to conclusions about other faiths we don't understand. He made the comparison between the many Hindu gods and the Catholic saints. It is so easy to condemn something we truly don't understand.It is so easy to mock something on the grounds that it is foreign to us. Over the years while studying I have wondered "why is it that we give in so easily to what we read and hear without truly verifying itfor ourselves?". It is so easy for us to misunderstand something about religion and look no further. What makes it worse is that not only do we put forth no effort to verify from multiple sources the truth of the subject but it also seems we make the mistake of then turning around and proclaiming what little we know about a religion as "undisputed doctrine"! A fine example of this is the first quote I opened up this topic with. Tim LaHaye co-author of the "Left Behind"Book series is a well-respected minister, author and judging by the 50 million plus copies this book series has sold, he has a lot of people that are willing to listen to what he says.
This creates a problem though. This is what creates the many misunderstandings and misconceptions of faith. Here we have a well-respected author with a huge audience yet every line he has writtenin that quote is filled with blunders and inaccuracies about theCatholic Faith. No I'm not arguing from a perspective of faith and Idon't have any interest in trying to sling bible passages out there to try and defend the Catholic faith in this particular writing. In fact these points can be proven purely historically that the statements he is making are inaccurate. It can be proven historically that praying for the dead is an older Christian practice than the Canon of the Bible! It can be proven historically and factually that the sacraments of the Catholic faith have no link to paganism and are completely independent of paganism. The sacraments are no more pagan than the symbol of the cross is. We know historically that the symbol of the cross pre-dates Christianity but we also would be foolish toclaim that the cross is derived from paganism. This problem has arisen partially because of what we also talked about inclass. "Fundamentalism". Tim LaHaye is a "Christian" fundamentalist. As a Catholic I deal with this type of fundamentalism constantly. Let me share another experience with you about Christian Fundamentalism
I was in a World religions class a few years back that I did notcomplete and the Professor stated in one of his lessons that "The Catholic Church added 7 books to the bible" and that was why the Canon of the Catholic church consisted of 73 books and not 66 as allprotestant Canons do. Now, again, without having to rely on faith toprove my point I knew that this was historically impossible and that there were no grounds for this claim unless one had an obscure view of history. How was it that this idea that spawned from "Fundamentalism" found its way into the very classroom of a Secular school? Another thing that struck me as odd is that this teacher was the exact opposite of Professor Lane in that he refused to take any religious topic to the controversial level. Still, the point remained. "Fundamentalism" had found its way into the Classroom out of this teacher's mouth. I raised my hand curious where he learned this information. Had the "fundamentalist" voice been so loud that it actually drowned out reality? His explanation and answer wasthat he was unclear and didn't remember the exact details but wouldlook into it. I shared what I knew regarding the Canonization of the Bible which reached as far back as the synod of Rome in 382 a.d andthen the later councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 a.d.which listed all the books that Catholics still have in the bible.The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther removed them during thereformation in the 1500's. (There's much more detail regarding this Idon't intend to cover here) Unfortunately for the classroom, the professor brushed off my knowledge quickly changed the subject and ofcourse the class was left with the Professors "Undisputed Doctrine"to fill their minds. Christian Fundamentalism has even taken it so far as to deny that the Catholic Church had anything to do with the bible at all. Not even Martin Luther, a founding father ofProtestantism would agree with such a "deviation from history" that fundamentalism brings about. Again it doesn't take faith to prove this point as it can be understood clearly from the text of this next historical quote from one of the founding fathers of Protestantism.
"We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
-Martin Luther
The list goes on. We find these radical ideas in every faith if one takes a Fundamentalist approach. As a Catholic I have dealt with many Bible Christian Fundamentalists whose view of the Catholic faith is so misunderstood that it isn't even Catholicism anymore that they are disagreeing with, rather a mixture of false information projected to be Catholicism. An Archbishop by the name of Fulton J. Sheen put this reality in perspective when he said
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church-which is, of course, quite a different thing."
-Arch Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
So where do we draw the line? What are we supposed to do to protect ourselves from the Ocean of Misconceptions? I say we take ProfessorLanes advice and search for ourselves. Don't buy his or anyone's "information" without checking into it yourself. This includes what I have written here. I have quoted three different people and have given no citations to where I got these quotes from. I could be completely making this information up. Its been done manytimes in the books, magazines and the posters we read. Its done in lectures, on T.V and in Music. Don't buy it that easily.
Will we ever find the Truth? Who knows, but it doesn't hurt to try and get as close to it as we possibly can. We owe it to ourselves totest our faith, to test our knowledge and to search for the answers. Did Christians really believe Jesus was really God? Is the Book ofMormon really American history? Was Muhammad a true prophet of God? If we are going to be a member of any of these faiths we owe it to ourselves to investigate their claims. We must increase our Knowledge and understanding of different religions because without knowledge we will simply be lead to the Ocean of Misconceptions and forced to walk the Plank…
..and I don't want to Jump in that ocean without some blow up orange "floaties" on my arms
None of us should…
-Tim LaHaye
I like the point that the Professor brought up in class when we were learning about Hinduism. He brought up the point of judging and jumping to conclusions about other faiths we don't understand. He made the comparison between the many Hindu gods and the Catholic saints. It is so easy to condemn something we truly don't understand.It is so easy to mock something on the grounds that it is foreign to us. Over the years while studying I have wondered "why is it that we give in so easily to what we read and hear without truly verifying itfor ourselves?". It is so easy for us to misunderstand something about religion and look no further. What makes it worse is that not only do we put forth no effort to verify from multiple sources the truth of the subject but it also seems we make the mistake of then turning around and proclaiming what little we know about a religion as "undisputed doctrine"! A fine example of this is the first quote I opened up this topic with. Tim LaHaye co-author of the "Left Behind"Book series is a well-respected minister, author and judging by the 50 million plus copies this book series has sold, he has a lot of people that are willing to listen to what he says.
This creates a problem though. This is what creates the many misunderstandings and misconceptions of faith. Here we have a well-respected author with a huge audience yet every line he has writtenin that quote is filled with blunders and inaccuracies about theCatholic Faith. No I'm not arguing from a perspective of faith and Idon't have any interest in trying to sling bible passages out there to try and defend the Catholic faith in this particular writing. In fact these points can be proven purely historically that the statements he is making are inaccurate. It can be proven historically that praying for the dead is an older Christian practice than the Canon of the Bible! It can be proven historically and factually that the sacraments of the Catholic faith have no link to paganism and are completely independent of paganism. The sacraments are no more pagan than the symbol of the cross is. We know historically that the symbol of the cross pre-dates Christianity but we also would be foolish toclaim that the cross is derived from paganism. This problem has arisen partially because of what we also talked about inclass. "Fundamentalism". Tim LaHaye is a "Christian" fundamentalist. As a Catholic I deal with this type of fundamentalism constantly. Let me share another experience with you about Christian Fundamentalism
I was in a World religions class a few years back that I did notcomplete and the Professor stated in one of his lessons that "The Catholic Church added 7 books to the bible" and that was why the Canon of the Catholic church consisted of 73 books and not 66 as allprotestant Canons do. Now, again, without having to rely on faith toprove my point I knew that this was historically impossible and that there were no grounds for this claim unless one had an obscure view of history. How was it that this idea that spawned from "Fundamentalism" found its way into the very classroom of a Secular school? Another thing that struck me as odd is that this teacher was the exact opposite of Professor Lane in that he refused to take any religious topic to the controversial level. Still, the point remained. "Fundamentalism" had found its way into the Classroom out of this teacher's mouth. I raised my hand curious where he learned this information. Had the "fundamentalist" voice been so loud that it actually drowned out reality? His explanation and answer wasthat he was unclear and didn't remember the exact details but wouldlook into it. I shared what I knew regarding the Canonization of the Bible which reached as far back as the synod of Rome in 382 a.d andthen the later councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 a.d.which listed all the books that Catholics still have in the bible.The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther removed them during thereformation in the 1500's. (There's much more detail regarding this Idon't intend to cover here) Unfortunately for the classroom, the professor brushed off my knowledge quickly changed the subject and ofcourse the class was left with the Professors "Undisputed Doctrine"to fill their minds. Christian Fundamentalism has even taken it so far as to deny that the Catholic Church had anything to do with the bible at all. Not even Martin Luther, a founding father ofProtestantism would agree with such a "deviation from history" that fundamentalism brings about. Again it doesn't take faith to prove this point as it can be understood clearly from the text of this next historical quote from one of the founding fathers of Protestantism.
"We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
-Martin Luther
The list goes on. We find these radical ideas in every faith if one takes a Fundamentalist approach. As a Catholic I have dealt with many Bible Christian Fundamentalists whose view of the Catholic faith is so misunderstood that it isn't even Catholicism anymore that they are disagreeing with, rather a mixture of false information projected to be Catholicism. An Archbishop by the name of Fulton J. Sheen put this reality in perspective when he said
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church-which is, of course, quite a different thing."
-Arch Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
So where do we draw the line? What are we supposed to do to protect ourselves from the Ocean of Misconceptions? I say we take ProfessorLanes advice and search for ourselves. Don't buy his or anyone's "information" without checking into it yourself. This includes what I have written here. I have quoted three different people and have given no citations to where I got these quotes from. I could be completely making this information up. Its been done manytimes in the books, magazines and the posters we read. Its done in lectures, on T.V and in Music. Don't buy it that easily.
Will we ever find the Truth? Who knows, but it doesn't hurt to try and get as close to it as we possibly can. We owe it to ourselves totest our faith, to test our knowledge and to search for the answers. Did Christians really believe Jesus was really God? Is the Book ofMormon really American history? Was Muhammad a true prophet of God? If we are going to be a member of any of these faiths we owe it to ourselves to investigate their claims. We must increase our Knowledge and understanding of different religions because without knowledge we will simply be lead to the Ocean of Misconceptions and forced to walk the Plank…
..and I don't want to Jump in that ocean without some blow up orange "floaties" on my arms
None of us should…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)