Beliefnet Discussions - Beliefnet.com

Ratzinger on Original Sin

This forum has moved!
Same people, same great conversations, new location.
Please join us in the new Beliefnet Community.

<Prev | Next> First Page | Last Page

This is a read-only area.

Messages: 93 - 96 (97 total)

	PrickliestPear 7/29/2005 9:04 AM	93 out of 97
	silver, I believe that if you had the chance to ask Pope Benedict wether or not he meant to include Mary in his statement about how we are all tainted by the effects of Original Sin in our relationships, He would have made an exception for Her. Well, he is the pope, so he wouldn't really have a choice, would he? Apart from the Immaculate Conception issue, there is the further question of how original sin as described in the book is in any way remitted (or even affected) by baptism.

	lovinglife3052 7/29/2005 12:59 PM	94 out of 97
	Exactly what was it that I said that gave you that impression? That I do not believe his corpse was resuscitated? So, do you believe that Jesus rose again, with a glorified body or not? At any rate, it isn't "proof" of anything. What I mean is, why would the Apostles die for a lie, the lie (as some suppose) of the Ressurrection? This is my "proof": that the Apostles were willing to die to witness to the fact that Jesus was alive and well and ressurrected. Your notes on the contradictions between the Gospels are noteworthy, but that doesn't mean that the Gospels are invalid or untrustworthy. Reporters on the same events tend to report differently. Apart from that, there is the problematic notion that performing miracles somehow "proves" that he is the Son of God (in a unique sense)....Furthermore, there is a big difference between witnessing something first-hand, and merely reading about it. If I'm not already inclined to accept John's affirmation that Jesus is who he says he is, why would I believe his miracle stories? I'm not asking you to accept John as inspired Scripture, or to accept his claim that Jesus wrought miracles. I was quoting the text as a backdrop to my proof that the Ressurrection is validated in the blood of its witnesses, the Apostles. While I believe that it is inspired, and true, I can do nothing to suade you. You question the historicity of the martyrdoms of the Apostles. But do you still believe that they died for the faith? Don't even get me started on the portrayal of "the Jews" in the Gospel of John. I wasn't pointing this out to be some sort of anti-semite, rather, I was pointing out the fact that the Apostles were scared sh--less, and if it wasn't for their encounter with the Lord, they wouldn't have overcome this fear. I thought the "cross" was the "crux" of the Christian faith. ;-) That's funny! I think that there's an interpenetration of the Cross and the Ressurrection. I think I could accept the "teachings of Christ" with or without believing in the resurrection. I don't see what the connection is. As for the claims Jesus makes in the Gospel of John, I sincerely doubt most of them are authentic sayings of Jesus. Well, if the claim to divinity is found in the other Gospels, he is refered to as the Son of God, etc. As for the "prophecies refering to his death and ressurrection" [sic], it's important to keep in mind that these are contained in texts written after the death and resurrection took place. These could very easily be cases of vaticinium ex eventu, a prophecy created after the event. I would argue that, in fact, they were. I mean, if Jesus had told his disciples that he was going to be raised from the dead, why did they run away when he was being crucified? Why were they surprised when he was resurrected? It doesn't really make sense. I like this paragraph. ITs a good question. I would say, that really, the disciples probably didn't catch what he said at the time, or were too frightened to remember. But, there may be no answer, and I don't think its that necessary to answer your question. Your q has a sort of beauty to it. (:-) (cont'd)

	lovinglife3052 7/29/2005 1:00 PM	95 out of 97
	Just out of curiosity, do you think people who die in old age are resurrected as old people? I've always wondered that. The Gospel of John suggests that there is a serious continuity between the body as it exists immediately prior to death and the resurrection body, with Jesus's wounds still unhealed after he is raised. Will people whose flesh has decomposed be resurrected as skeletons? And what about people who have been cremated? What fascinating questions! I wouldn't know. Very good questions. Actually, I did do that, and I found it rather difficult to believe. I mean, if some guy was walking around claiming to be the "bread of life," would you really take seriously anything he had to say? Yes, his claims are extreme. And John admits (in chap 5) that many of his disciples left him for it. I understand why you can't read the bible uncritically (correct me if I'm wrong), there's things you find unbelieveable in it. Yours, Lovinglife

	PrickliestPear 7/31/2005 7:48 AM	96 out of 97
	So, do you believe that Jesus rose again, with a glorified body or not? I suppose you could put it that way, sure. This is my "proof": that the Apostles were willing to die to witness to the fact that Jesus was alive and well and ressurrected. As I said, I don't believe any of the martyrdom stories about the apostles. They cannot be used as "proof" because they are not themselves "proven." Reporters on the same events tend to report differently. That's not a very good analogy. The differences between the evangelists cannot simply be attributed to the same things that cause "reporters on the same events...to report differently." The purpose of their gospels was not to "report" what happened, but to proclaim a message. The diverse ways in which they understood that message were shaped by their own unique theological perspectives, and this is reflected in their work. You question the historicity of the martyrdoms of the Apostles. But do you still believe that they died for the faith? I don't think we have any way of knowing that. Actually, if they had died for their faith, it's a little odd that there isn't any evidence of this from texts written within a century of it happening. I don't see the point of believing that something happened if it has no historical evidence to support it. I mean, why would I? Well, if the claim to divinity is found in the other Gospels, he is refered to as the Son of God, etc. Jesus was not the first Jewish man to be called "Son of God." That title did not itself imply divinity, but merely closeness to God. It was not until Christianity moved outside of a strictly Jewish milieu that it was interpreted as an exclusive title for Jesus, when the "Son of God" became "God the Son." PP

<Prev | Next> First Page | Last Page

This is a read-only area.