A New Search for Ultimate Reality
This Café Table is titled a New Search for Ultimate Reality.
Marie Schickel Rottschaefer is the facilitator.
Its goal is to give a brief overview of developments that have relevance for us in the early 21st century, particularly in seeking solutions for pressing people and planet problems.
NCRcafe New Search Discussion Number Four, January 24, 2007
Greetings confreres. Those who are here at the table for the first time and want to understand the continuity of the discussion can go to the top of this post and click Spirituality and Culture. The previous listings should open up. The last post was Jan. 2, 2007. The Discussions date back to Oct. 27, 2006.
If any of you ask a question or make a comment and I fail to respond, it in no way reflects a disregard for your question or comment. Logistically I may not be able to respond. I want to remind you again that “New Search’s” purpose is primarily information giving or education for action. It is not a platform for debate and rebuttal. You may agree or disagree with the material and discuss it among yourselves. But my purpose is educational as reflected in the goal (see above).
Now to continue with Sheehan’s article. With the increased open and freer intellectual atmosphere, Catholic scholars collaborated with those outside the Roman Catholic Church in investigating the Bible with the best exegetical means available. Among these systems was “form criticism” which was the study of the early oral traditions basic to the New Testament. Another tool was “redaction criticism” that put into order the differing theological conceptions the evangelists used in redoing earlier material for their Gospels. As the evolution of early Christian faith became manifest, Catholic scholars began publishing startling conclusions that the Gospel accounts of the claims Jesus apparently made that he was Christ and God did not come from him but were interpretations his followers fashioned in the decades following his death.
The new understanding of Christianity that Catholic scholars now recommend is not a reasoned attack on traditional doctrine but the result of scientific exegesis of the New Testament. Sheehan goes on to say that Cardinal William Baum, formerly the archbishop of Washington, DC, and at that time prefect of the Congregation of Catholic Education in Rome, summarized the state of affairs. He (Baum) said that ‘the evidence’ of Scripture both to the scholar and even the believer, is of itself inconclusive in determining the meaning of the most basic beliefs of the Christian faith: the identity of Jesus, the meaning of his life and death, the nature of his triumph, the obligations imposed on his followers, the consequences of his life for us and so forth.
Therefore, the new approach that Catholic scholars are employing in understanding Jesus and the scriptures according to Sheehan is what he calls the “liberal consensus.” The liberal consensus is the set of conclusions produced by internationally recognized Catholic exegetes and theologians using the methods of scientific exegesis. These scholars include Brown, Murphy, Meier, Fitzmyer, Tracy, Schillebeeckx, Kung, and hundreds of others who do research and publish in scholarly journals.
But Sheehan goes on to say that while the liberal consensus has become dominant in Catholic scholarship that does not mean that those identified with it accept all the work of their colleagues. Here, as in other fields of research, scholars have come to a consensus not on a set of dogmas but on the questions to be asked and the methods for answering them. A consensus allows wide-ranging internal dispute, but it sets limits that exclude certain presuppositions and procedures. But this does not necessarily mean that old approaches are universally rejected or cease to function in certain instances.
He continues. Many of the conclusions of the “liberal consensus” conflict intensely with traditional Catholic doctrine. For example, there is scarcely a Catholic Biblical scholar who maintains that Jesus thought he was the divine Son of God who preexisted from all eternity as the second person of the Trinity before he became a human being. Jesus knew nothing about the Trinity and never mentioned it in his preaching.
Jesus knew nothing about the idea that his mother remained a virgin with his conception and birth. Most likely Mary told Jesus what she knew of his origins. He had a natural father and was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. There were no services of angels, shepherds, and wise men bearing gifts. Sheehan quips, she could have told her son the traditional nativity story only if she had read these legends some fifty years after her son’s death! These inspiring but unhistorical Christmas myths first appeared in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke some half-century after Jesus’ crucifixion.
According to the consensus, while Jesus had a reputation as a faith healer, he likely performed very few “miracles.” It seems he ordained no priests and consecrated no bishops. Apparently he did not know he was expected to establish the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church with St. Peter as the first in a long line of infallible popes. Actually, Jesus had no intention of breaking with Judaism in order to found a separate Church. Rather, he confined his mission to Jews and called on his disciples to repent, to celebrate the dawning of God’s kingdom, and possibly to expect the
imminent arrival of both apocalyptic events (events involving widespread destruction and devastation) and an apocalyptic figure called the “Son of Man,” whom Jesus never identified with himself.
Sheehan then takes on a slightly different tone that speaks more directly to the purpose of his review of Hans Kung’s book Eternal Life? Life After Death as a Medical, Philosophical, and Theological Problem. Nevertheless, he maintains the focus of his article, i.e. revolution in the Church, by commenting on types of reactions to this reevaluation of Jesus’ status, stating that it depends on one’s relation to the Catholic community. Outside Catholicism it could be anything from indifference to satisfaction that the Church is beginning to accept the notion of freedom of research and speech. But within Catholicism the conclusions of the liberal consensus are extremely controversial and risk splitting the faithful into rival camps. Thus Sheehan introduces Kung’s book on life after death, as a work emerging out of the consensus’ reinterpretation of the resurrection of Jesus. But if matters are already controversial this book will add both heat and light.
Sheehan says that Kung reviews the contemporary discussion of the afterlife in the areas of comparative religions, philosophy, and medicine --including life-after-death experiences, which he says are only experiences of life after clinical death and say nothing about eternal life. But the focus of his book is a deconstructive analysis (deconstructive means that because of the instability of language, the reader rather than the author is the primary one who determines the meaning of a text) of the Biblical data behind the Christian belief that Jesus was raised from the dead. Sheehan states that Kung says nothing that we can’t find elsewhere in modern Roman Catholic exegesis. Kung is so clear one is hardly aware that the traditional theology is collapsing. In addition, Kung leaves the corpse of Jesus corrupted by physical death in whatever tomb it may occupy.
It is of special interest to notice what Kung says next of the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead. This belief is a late-arriving idea in Judaism, making its initial appearance about 164 BCE. Early Judaism maintained that the dead enter Sheol, a dark nether world of semi- existence from which no one expected them to emerge. But during the difficult years of the Maccabean revolt, a new hope arose: that God would vindicate his faithful people by resurrecting them from the dead at the end of the world. A Jewish eschatology (the final human fate) emerged, along with its literary expression in apocalypse, the scriptural genre (category) that elaborated imaginative descriptions of the coming catastrophe and its aftermath.
Sheehan continues. Although eschatological thinking was ubiquitous in the culture in which Jesus lived and preached, he toned down the apocalyptic imagery and instead proclaimed that the kingdom of God had arrived in his words and deeds. He saw himself not as God or the Messiah, but as a Jewish prophet, the definitive and authoritative voice proclaiming the final clarity of history. He paid for his radical claims by being crucified under the notorious anti-Semite, Pontius Pilate, probably on Friday, April 7, in the year 30 CE.
According to Sheehan, the next event that can be actually dated in Christian history is not Jesus’ emergence from the tomb but the birth of the disciples’ faith in him. Shortly after he died, his followers in Galilee came to believe that God had vindicated Jesus, now miraculously alive in heaven, by designating him the future Son of Man. That hazy apocalyptic figure expected soon, but up until this time unidentified, now took the form of a known human being. Jesus, the proclaimer of the kingdom of God, became the one proclaimed, within a short time to appear in glory.
More 02/09/07. Finish article 02/28/07.
Nature is primary scripture;
Nature is primary scripture; hermeneutic continuity in secondary scriptures presupposes continuity of Primary Scripture. We must presume Divine Instance in primary scripture, by which continuity transfers to secondary scriptures
Patriarchy and dominion theology are burnt-out lucifers. Both luminaries have had their supernovae events and both are now spent white dwarf stars. But there is now a "deeper level of reality" rising. See NCR 2/2/2007, Rich Heffern's "Eidolon", Mind & Matter, pg 14.
This deeper reality is St. John's "Sea of Infinite Substance", David Bohm's "eidolon", and my "psychic precondition" (superstrings). See: Open Letter to Pope Benedict, January 20, 2007, published at www.acolyte.gather.com and available as a free download at www.secondenlightenment.org)
This ubiquitous spirituality (Divine Instance) is the Matrix Womb of all cosmic substance, of life and self-awareness. Cosmic holism illuminates the new insights of gender equality and liberation theology. Psychic holism can open consciousness to a new era of harmonic wholeness when every person lets faith, hope and love illumine her every communication, consciousness and deliberate (conscionable) act.
Sylvester, I think Rich
Sylvester, I think Rich Heffern's article is timely given the gist of this thread. The probable holographic nature of the universe has a real message given the dialogue on this thread about the nature of christ's divinity.
I've never given a great deal of thought to whether Christ did or did not know he was one with the Father-- as in equally divine with the Father. I've always tended to believe Jesus came to this conclusion over time, and may not have meant it to be taken in the way we have taken it. Perhaps He had a deeper understanding of the Ultimate reality of this reality and understood His divinity more in the way that physics is now beginning to describe it. The idea the Jesus would have understood his divinity from an early age is to me absurd because the human brain, and it's attendant neural networks, take time to develop. The Jesus of 12 may have understood things pretty black and white, where the Jesus of 30 would have had a much deeper, broader understanding of what he thought at 12. This is just the way the human brain develops.
I've always been interested in the concept of personal soul. Just what is this soul thing? If we're ensouled at conception what does this mean? How does God know me before I am. What aspect of my finite being lives on beyond my death and is my conscious sense of self separate from the biology which gives it life and expression? The concept of an everlasting holographic universe, which supercedes the Newtonian expression of our sense perceptual universe, seems to me to have the answers to my questions.
My biology becomes the explicate expression of my implicate existence. In other words I exist in implicate matter as well as this expression in explicate matter which is typing these sentences. Sometimes I think I connect with that greater universe and can actually create in this one. I'm now looking at the Gospels and Jesus's life exactly as He said--As the Way, the Truth, and the Light. Get your life vibrating high enough and the implicate ground of our being (the God Source) opens up many exciting possibilities and connections.
My Native friends talk about the necessity of becoming a hollow bone. By this they mean that in order for the spiritual to manifest in this reality the person who is doing the requesting must be as free from the demands of their own ego as is possible. It's been my experience that those of a spiritual bent who clearly demonstrate a Christ like understanding of living this life are the ones who most clearly demonstrate the possibilities inherent in the implicate universe. It's been a pretty wild ride. Sometimes I think the New Testament should be republished under the title: Handbook for Quantum Wizards.
Col, I have been reflecting
Col,
I have been reflecting on what you and Sylvester have posted here. I would just like to throw out some ideas which are bouncing around in my head.
The holographic nature of the universe in interesting and does explain a lot but I do have some problems with it. I have, for some time, looked at creation in this way. If we could go back to the moment before creation (I don't believe it possible but just to make a point) then only God existed. Therefore, when God created, the entire universe was made in God's image because there was no other image. I see it as God reflecting on self and projecting or making visible the fruit of that reflection in the act of creating. When Scripture speaks of humans being made in the image of God, it is affirming the human being 'reflects' God in a special way as does saying God breathed life into the human. I think that, at the ground of my being and the ground of your being is the Ground of All Being whom we call God.
The article by Heffern says, "We view particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate 'parts' but facets of a deeper, more underlying unity that is ultimately holographic, indivisible." Could what is here being said about particles also be said of ourselves. Are we all really not separate but expressions of a whole? Our 'souls', are they really separate 'spirits' or expressions of the One Spirit? When we say God knew us before we were born are we saying God knew God before we were born? Is God static or is God evolving? Is God, in creating, setting God's ideas out so s/he can 'see' them as we jot down our ideas so we can work on expressing them more clearly?
Is the study of the universt theology? If we grow in our understanding of Jesus and how he understood himself are we also growing in our understanding of ourselves and who we are? Is the Incarnation also about us?
I find the questions being asked by Scripture scholars and scientists exciting. I don't claim to understand it all, but it opens vistas I have long suspected were there and I delight in pondering the possibilities.
Now, if I have simply lost my mind, please tell me so.
I am in love with this
I am in love with this question. "Is the study of the universe theolgy?", and I also think we have to ask the question, "Is the study of humanity theology?" I think both are accurate. Humanity has consiousness and so does the universe. How this fits together is the object of theology. In too many cases we are apt to put one before the other in questions such as: How did Jesus understand His divinity and humanity. Bob you have done an admirable job of trying to express this with heretoday, and he with you.
I feel it's not that easy to articulate, as my experience of both questions is that we are not alone in attempting to answer this question. There are other sentient entities involved in this question and they have their own experiences. Heretoday and many others would call them 'angels'.
The multli dimensional universe of quantum physics describes in mathematics a reality which is being played out in history, theology and science. It's also being played out in our own individual history, theology, and science. It's pretty exciting if one can let themselves go there. I stay on this cafe because there are many people going there. I will repeat something I have already posted. The NT should be retitled the Handbook of Quantum Wizards. It is incredible to me to know and understand Jesus was there long before humanity was there. I also think that He had to go where he went in order to point us in a different direction. The whole history of Western thought as it was impacted by His life has allowed us to understand the quantum universe. I don't think it could have come from any other source but the Ressurection and Pentecost. No other religious push has had this kind of effect on our understanding of the universe.
Love is the issue. It connects the quantum universe wilth ourselves and with the Source of our Being. Our influence in the overall source of that energy and how it will operate is our Choice. Hence the story of the of the tree of knowledge in the OT has truth. Yes, I know it's an allegory, but it states truth. The real issue is not that I have to have that fruit, but that I make choices and by my fruit you will know my choices. Choose to have a great day Bob, and thank God if it is.
Picking up on Bob's
Picking up on Bob's question: "Are we all really not separate but expressions of a whole?" it makes me reflect on how The Beginning connects with ultimate reality. The "Tree of Life" metaphor in Genesis and its original connection to the human proclivity to sin, failure and incompleteness surely has meaning also with respect to ultimate reality.
At all levels of personal existence, and at all times, we are in deep dialog with the amniotic waters of Psychic Precondition — the Angelic domain. Electron Messengers (Greek, "angeloi") undertake the unending task of making us over, socially and individually, in the perpetual processing of deep substance transformation — the domain of wave/particle exchange.
It is in this (these) realm(s) that psychic "juices" mix the deep waters of subconsciousness, and where fresh insights of consciousness surface. Here occurs the life work of poetry consciousness. Vitality is Eden's grand "Middletree". Middletree life differentiates in untold numbers of "leaves". Individual life is a leaf whose work endures forever in the "Poetree" Psyche.
WHERE ANGELS TREAD
Wisdom's escalating helix is emotion's descending tread reviewed in ascending intelligence.
Emotion's fear-driven wave and her embrace of halo delight are motivational poles that pave the intelligence net of insight.
Intuitional clarity is passionate presage of experienced realities; their angelic exchange is alternate current of heavenly message.
Ecstatic angel legions carry the many meanings of signal flash that read in flesh the unlimited revelations of heavens radio master.
As they negotiate the starlit ocean between dendrite and axon, angels cheer their secured passage through disaster's static potential.
Angel-talk is task dispatch patching Legion enterprise of heaven/earth expansion, building for life the mansion rooms sanctioned in water.
[From EDEN'S LIFEWORK POETREE, Book Four, "Becoming Conscious", pg 9.]
EDEN'S LIFEWORK POETREE is a collection of original poems in nine chapbooks (plus one). If you are interested about purchasing you may inquire at the email address given at www.secondenlightenment.org
I guess it only works if
I guess it only works if *shudder* He gets credit for it, but can't we claim anything?
from the underdesk of Gone Tomorrow.
But seriously, the whole
But seriously, the whole quantum physics as theology seems rather absurd to me. (But then do I really exist or am I a projection you are emminating?) The science behind it seems rather shakey as well. For us to have the ability to effect quantum change in our environment, we would need to produce how much energy?
And can anyone point me to any prior (or more reliable, I don't trust demons) mention of this then Ramtha's appearence in 1977?
What is Ultimate Reality. It
What is Ultimate Reality. It is intelligent inquiry that compels life's quest.
Faith, Hope and Love convince us that all transformation occurring at wave/particle depths is Pure (UNCOMPROMISED) Intelligence (TRUST).
Personal intelligence either conforms or compromises Pure Intelligence. Intentionality enables conformity; mindlessness (ignorance) and willful obtusity (arrogance) compromise Pure Intelligence.
When we "own" the possibilities of our personal journey and do not compromise trust, Divine Intelligence comes to us. The best is yet to come — greater Godlike Harmony.
Ultimate Reality is Alpha/Omega Harmony, means/end reciprocity. Let's keep the quest vibrant. It calls for dialog, the coming together of diverse insights, openness to truth in all its dimensions. Thank you all!
Sylvester, Please clarify
Sylvester,
Please clarify some things for me. I follow you, but from a distance on a foggy morning. You say Ultimate Reality is intelligent inquiry that compels life's quest. Now, as I understand/misunderstand it, I would see this as the Quest for Ultimate Reality rather than Ultimate Reality itself. I see wave/particle depth the point where the unmanifest manifests. The eternal and on going instant of creation where the Ultimate Reality causes the wave/particle. The point where the invisible becomes visible. Possibly the Pure Intelligence expressing Itself in thought.
Help!
Life is process. The final
Life is process. The final outcome of experience of Ultimate Reality isn't knowable in the present life. The only reality that is, is the reality of the moment; so we are always experiencing ultimate reality as final for the moment. The past is past, the future is yet to be determined. Ultimate reality from the human perspective is the experience of the moment. If we are true to ourselves and faithful in informing consciousness to the best of our ability, and follow conscience in our choices, we are following the compulsion of intelligent inquiry. The individual life-quest requires the best effort of personal intelligence — informed consciousness, fidelity to conscience in choice. That's what maturity is about.
You are not a projection I
You are not a projection I am emminating. You are currently a projection of our belief in the power of the internet. Just kidding. Wow, You know of Ramtha. I am impressed. You don't seem to have much more of a life outside the internet than I do.
Quantum physics as theology only has validity if you've experienced things which are outside the norm of Newtonian reality. If that happens to you, then you definitely look for explanations outside of Newtonian physics. Sometimes these 'outside' interactions involve angels, not demons. Angels are interesting. The first time I interacted with one he seemed to know I wasn't about to buy into the typical angel concept. He said: "Peace, leave your dogma about us outside the door of your mind. Consider us nonorganic sentient beings."
I was kind of blown away, so I forgot to ask how "many of you can dance on the head of a pin?" But I did ask later, and he/she (I don't think they have a real gender) said "as many as want to." Like now I'm into what are you really?
It's been the biggest mistake of my emotional and intellectual life. They seem to be about reducing the size of my ego until it no longer exists. In the meantime, as long as I stay in tune with them, and my idea of living the Way as Jesus taught it, I bend Newtonian reality. Unfortunatley for Catholicism, the people who taught me about the miracles inherent in Catholicism weren't precisely Catholic, they were Catholic Native Americans and I was guided to them by these pesky angel people.
I don't think it was an accident that you are defending Luke's nativity narrative.
With respect to knowing
With respect to knowing personal "reality", we can know it only in the immediate, not in the "ultimate" for we cannot know the contingencies that come our way on a daily basis and transform us. But we can live by a pattern that keeps us ready to allow any moment to be our ultimate moment. That pattern is to live by harmonic resonance (trimorphic), by which the purpose of our life is to become ever more Jesus-like in all things.
"Such particles are not
"Such particles are not separate 'parts' but facets of a deeper, more underlying unity that is ultimately holographic, indivisible." Could what is here being said about particles also be said of ourselves." I imagine that particles change phase and are expressive as wave energy — non-particulate. Energy, disposed in ways unknown and probably unknowable, is universal precondition (possible worlds) to the cosmic whole, instance and expression of God in all. It is an accepted phenomenon that our bodies are in constant process of cosmic make-over at the deep particle level.
"Our 'souls', are they really separate 'spirits' or expressions of the One Spirit?" Chardin suggests that human soul (is) may be extensions and evolving subtleties of natural (organic) soul; and I would suggest one with the holistic continuum of cosmic energy.
"If we grow in our understanding of Jesus and how he understood himself are we also growing in our understanding of ourselves and who we are? Is the Incarnation also about us?" It must be. Not?
"I don't claim to understand it all, but it opens vistas I have long suspected were there and I delight in pondering the possibilities." Isn't that but natural to rationality? to Trimorphic Resonance? Of course none of us understands it all. But we can always try to understand more. It's how we learn to be "At Home in the Cosmos" (David Toolan) Thanks, All!
Here Today, "Is it possible
Here Today, "Is it possible for us to accept someone who claims to be God as a good moral teacher without also accepting their claim to be Divine?"
No one is suggesting that Jesus Christ was not divine. The question is whether or not he, as a true human being, understood himself to be divine or ever actually claimed to be. What is being suggested is that it was only after the Resurrection that his divinity was recognized and understood and that this understanding was then projected back to influence what became the Gospels. The suggestion is that the "historical Jesus" never actually made such statements. As for Thomas' "My Lord and My God", this was post-Resurrection.
The question is not simply academic and it has much to do with Catholicism and Christianity. It gives us pause to look at the man, Jesus, the human being. To put aside his divinity for a moment and consider how he, as a human being, related to his and our Father. I was taught that Jesus was God revealing and man responding. The God revealing part speaks to his divinity, the man responding to his humanity. If we are to respond to the Father as Jesus did then Jesus must have responded to God as a true human being. If he responded to the Father in any other way, we would not be able to follow his example as it is only in-so-far as we are like Jesus that we can follow him. This means that Jesus was a person on faith and that it was through faith that he related to the Father. For example, in the Garden the night before he died, was he, as human being, aware of Easter Sunday or was he putting his trust in the Father without knowing the outcome? You see, if he knew the outcome, it was not an act of faith. If, on the other hand, he could not see the Resurrection, it was a tremendous act of faith. We then have to wonder how he came to such faith. Was it because he really knew he was God, or because, as man, in prayer and medatation, in reading and pondering the Scriptures, in living his Jewish faith, he became convinced he had a mission and it was in attempting to fulfill this mission that he found himself in that Garden fearing for his life? Did he question how it all came to this? Could he have been wrong about having a mission? Was it all a great big mistake? Was it all going to end in failure? Yet, did he remain convinced, again as a human being, that it was all about doing the will of God as he had come to undrstand it?
You have to remember this man was a Jew. He had been raised in a good Jewish family. He had been taught to respect the traditions of his people. Yet, he came to the point where he had to speak out against those traditions. That is not an easy road.
How did he come to that point? Was it through faith or did his divinity "bleed through" into his humanity so he saw it all clearly?
What does it have to do with us? When, through prayer, medatation, reflection on life we find ourselves driven to question and challange yet must consider the very real possibility we are mistakes, what are we to do? Are we to wait for some divine intervention that would remove all doubt or we to, in faith, understand that divine intervention has already and is continually taking place and to step out in fiath without knowing the consequences?
I believe the same faith that prompted Jesus to question in his day is moving many people to question in our day and we can decide for ourselves how we are to respond to those questions. I believe the Pharasees were convinced they were correct in their condemnation of Jesus. I think their faith moved them to reject him in the name of protecting their traditions. So, who is correct today? Time will tell. A prayerful and open mind is something we all need to pray for.
Saying that He did not
Saying that He did not believe Himself to be God would be denying His Divinity (How can one be all knowing, yet not know Himself? Even the pagans know enough to realize that to "Know Thyself" is important.)
The statements are rejected BECAUSE they are claims to divinity. Jesus was brought to trial, and convicted by the Sanhedrin because He did not deny His divinity. (What further need have we of witnesses?) The modern method of Biblical research involves a great deal of eisgesis, reading into Scripture what one wishes to read. This is nothing truly modern, unless of course we regard the heretics through the ages as modern (notably Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, etc in the Protestant Revolt).
I would say that one cannot fully seperate the Divinity and humanity as you seem wont to do, at least not without dividing them into two persons, cohabitiating in the same body. I would suggest that in the Garden it is primarily an act not of faith, but of charity (love). This follows from "man has no greater love than this, to lay doen his life for his friends", which is precisely what Jesus does. Whether Jesus had the virtues of faith and hope is a valid question, as Divine knowledge precludes both.
It is intresting to note, however, that during the Passion, the Father seems to have withdrawn from the Son (Eli, Eli Lema Sbachthani?), but such would be an effect of the sins Jesus took upon Himself. Could Jesus here then posses the virtues of faith and hope? I personally doubt it, as He seems to retain His knowledge (Weep not for me, but for yourselves and your children; This day you will be with me in Paradise), but I think that this question is entirely academic and has insignificant bearing on our faith.
Jesus could not give us perfect examples of everything in our lives, for example, He did not show us how spouses ought to live, or a woman conduct herself. (Christian teaching on these largely comes from St. Paul). He could show us how we were to relate to the Father, but He Himself relates to the Father differently than we do. After all we are not natural children of the Father, but adopted. We do not share the Divintity of God as Jesus did. We are not cosubstantial with the Father.
Yes Jesus was a Jew, aware of the culture, faith, and rituals of the Jewish people. He followed all those that His Father had established, even until the night before He died. He was aware that He came to fulfill this faith, to fulfill the rituals, as only He could. He was aware of this long before even His Baptism (Did you not know I must be in my Father's House?). He spoke out against the 'heavy burdens' that the priests and scribes tied up for others but did not lift themselves, not against the Law (I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it).
Here Today, I believe you
Here Today,
I believe you are still missing the point of the Ultimate Reality post. It is not about whether Jesus "believed" himself to be God, but if he, as a human, knew himself to the God, to be the Second Person of the Trinity. It is suggesting that it was only after the Resurrection that his divinity was recognized and that this understanding of him was then reflected back on the Gospels. This being the case, what we are reading in the Gospels is not what Jesus believed of himself, but what the Chruch came to believe of him after the Resurrection.
We look at the Incarnation as beginning with the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb. But, look at what Paul says in Romans which was written around 57 A.D., some ten to twelve years before Mark's Gospel. "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh but was made Son of God in power according the the spirit of holiness, by his resurrection from the dead:" (Rom. 1: 3-4). This text, written early in Christian history, does not preclude the Incarnation having begun with conception, but suggests that the realization of the Incarnation did not come until after the Resurrection. Would that realization have been limited to the Chruch, or was Christ himself not aware of his divinity until the Resurrection.
On the other hand, Paul also writes, in Phillippians, (which was written possibly as early as 53 A.D. or possibly 5 years later so it is difficult to say for sure if it was written before or about the same time as Romans) "Though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at, Rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a salve." (Phil. 2: 6) At any rate, it seems to me that the quote from Phil. was speaking of the Second Person of the Trinity while Romans is looking at it from the vantage point of the historical Jesus who was, of course, the Incarnate Word.
Again, the divinity of Jesus Christ is not being questioned. The question is whether the historical Jesus was aware of his divine nature. I believe we would reject the notion that Jesus was a "Clark Kent" who hid his real identity and only pretended to be weak. I believe it sound Catholic teaching that Jesus was fully human and so I conclude he realted to the Father as a truly human being just as you or I do. I think understanding, as best we can, the humanity of Jesus gives us a better understanding of who we are and how we relate to God.
Anyway, just my thoughts. Thanks for your reply. Hope you will continue the conversation.
And you are missing my point
And you are missing my point that you cannot separate the two natures of Christ into two persons. (Well you can, but not within the realm of Catholic thought).
Of course, we have Scriptural evidence that Jesus knew from at least the time He was twelve. (Did you not know I must be in my Father's House?)
All in all you do realize that we are rehashing one of the ancient Christological controversies (namely Nestorianism)? Perhaps a look back to Cyril of Alexandria is in order?
"Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh according to substance, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ: we do not divide the God from the man, nor separate him into parts, as though the two natures were mutually united in him only through a sharing of dignity and authority (for that is a novelty and nothing else), neither do we give separately to the Word of God the name Christ and the same name separately to a different one born of a woman; but we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with his own Flesh. For as man he was anointed with us, although it is he himself who gives the Spirit to those who are worthy and not in measure, according to the saying of the blessed Evangelist John."
For God to be unaware that He is God (which is what you require if you attempt to retain one person, and yet have on nature unaware of the other), is lunacy.
Remeber: it is also Catholic teaching that He is fully God, and so relates to the Father as none of us can, and even in His humanity He could relate better to the Father, as He was without stain or blemish of sin.
Here Today, Again, I an not
Here Today,
Again, I an not suggesting we "separate the two natures of Christ into two persons." I am suggesting that, while in the person of Jesus Christ the divine and human natures were united in what we call the hypostatic union, the human nature was real and not enhanced by the divine nature nor was the divine nature deminsihed by the human nature. The human nature of Jesus Christ was truly human as the divine nature was truly divine.
The question is not if both natures were present, but if, as human being, Jesus was knew he was divine. You say we "have Scriptural evidence that Jesus knew from at least the time He was twelve." The only problem here is that this is part of Luke's Infancy Narrative and is not historical so, in relation to this question (among others) it proves nothing.
Please carefully read and comment on the following. " Many of the conclusions of the “liberal consensus” conflict intensely with traditional Catholic doctrine. For example, there is scarcely a Catholic Biblical scholar who maintains that Jesus thought he was the divine Son of God who preexisted from all eternity as the second person of the Trinity before he became a human being. Jesus knew nothing about the Trinity and never mentioned it in his preaching."
I'll address the last
I'll address the last portion of your post first, if you don't mind (not that you have a choice;-)
You asked me to comment on the following quote from the original article: "Many of the conclusions of the “liberal consensus” conflict intensely with traditional Catholic doctrine. For example, there is scarcely a Catholic Biblical scholar who maintains that Jesus thought he was the divine Son of God who preexisted from all eternity as the second person of the Trinity before he became a human being. Jesus knew nothing about the Trinity and never mentioned it in his preaching."
This reflects an ignorance (I'm willing to grant, for the sake of the arguement, that this is not intentional ignorance) of Catholic Biblical scholarship. Aside from the issue of any Biblial scholar seriously raising these issues is truly Catholic, there are indeed many scholars who do actually believe that yes, Jesus was God (and man), knew that He was God, that His mission on earth directly involved that Divinity, that He was aware of the Trinity (He spoke frequently on the relation between the Father and Himself, as well as mentioning the Spirit. He taught baptism "in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit", and He acknowledged that God is One (a central tenant of Judiasm, particularly emphasized in contrast to the pagan pantheons that were prevalent through the time of Christ.))
It would seem to me that such an author never really did any Biblical studies of their own, but is content with the taking the liberal consensus, ignoring the fact that it only the liberal consensus.
Was Luke's Infancy narritive historical? Well, Luke (the author of both the Gospel of that name and the Acts of the Apostles) was a learned man, a physician and artist. He set out (as he states in the beginning of aforementioned Gospel) to investigate all things afresh to set before you the truth. Now we know that he had accompanied Paul at times (note the changes in Acts from 'he went' to 'we went'), it is likely that he would have met other Apostles. It is therefore highly plausible that he met John, who was caring for the Blessed Mother. If he wanted to "investigate fully" who better to talk to then Mary? So indeed the Infancy narritive may not only be a historical acount, but that of Mary herself. So I resubmit that Jesus knew He was Divine at least from the time of that account. (Fair warning: I've argued Scripture with Fundamentalist friends, I have a little practice in on-the-spot exegesis).
And so we come back to the heart of the matter: Jesus's natures and their relationship to each other in the fulness of His Person. Who exactly is the person we are talking about? Is it not the Logos, the eternal Second Person of the Trinity? This Divine Person assumed human nature, in doing so did He forget Himself? Or was the Person divided in the union of natures, so as not to be aware of Himself?
Is the Human Nature perfect? Is the Divine? If the human nature is not perfect, can it be joined to a perfect Divine Nature, unchanged? Would not the human nature be transformed by the union with the Divine Nature?
Here Today, To be quite
Here Today,
To be quite frank with you, I don't know how to reply to your post. You wrote, "This reflects an ignorance (I'm willing to grant, for the sake of the arguement, that this is not intentional ignorance) of Catholic Biblical scholarship." The point is that this IS Catholic Biblical scholarship and represents the positions of respected Catholic scholars. Yes, there is often conflict with traditional Catholic doctrine, but that conflice can only be resolved by addressing and understanding the issues. Simply brushing off the work of these scholars by saying they are not Catholic is unworthy of one for whom truth is important.
Apparently, much of this is
Apparently, much of this is not Catholic Biblical scholarship, as the CDF's recent notice would indicate.
The notification explains what is wrong, theologically, with many of the points we had been discussing here.
"Quite frankly" can we not
"Quite frankly" can we not penetrate more deeply into "divine instance" in the whole of the transformational universe and conceive of the extension of divine/human hypostasis beyond the lifetime of the "physical embodiment" of Jesus? Isn't that precisely who we are when we seek in all things to become "Godlike" in word and work? Isn't that the call of Jesus' disciple and the mission of his apostle? [I mean to direct this post to here, today. We are Jesus to each other, today and tomorrow.]
And ignoring Scott Hahn,
And ignoring Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, Jesse Romero, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, Steve Ray (and these are just some of the better known Americans, leaving out many especially those in the Curia) is proving knowledge of Catholic Scriptural scholarship? At least I acknowledge that the liberal theologians exist.
I would suggest thath these scholars take a break from their field and try Patristics for a little while (to see why many of their pet theories were condemned centuries ago). And I do address the issues, you asked for a comment on a poorly worded (if not completely ignorant) section of the original post, I would prefer to focus on the issue, I asked a few questions in my last post...
Here Today, "Yet, time will
Here Today,
"Yet, time will prove where wisdom lies." (Mt. 11: 19)
And so we return to paths
And so we return to paths time had rellegated as folly?
(Sorry I didn't get the point of your post, unless to invoke an Argumentum Versus Traditio, which is no more valid than its inverse.)
You will, here, you will.
You will, here, you will.
I think I captured it in my
I think I captured it in my last post.
Ah well, back to the topic at hand, if you will:
Was Luke's Infancy narritive historical? Well, Luke (the author of both the Gospel of that name and the Acts of the Apostles) was a learned man, a physician and artist. He set out (as he states in the beginning of aforementioned Gospel) to investigate all things afresh to set before you the truth. Now we know that he had accompanied Paul at times (note the changes in Acts from 'he went' to 'we went'), it is likely that he would have met other Apostles. It is therefore highly plausible that he met John, who was caring for the Blessed Mother. If he wanted to "investigate fully" who better to talk to then Mary? So indeed the Infancy narritive may not only be a historical acount, but that of Mary herself. So I resubmit that Jesus knew He was Divine at least from the time of that account. (Fair warning: I've argued Scripture with Fundamentalist friends, I have a little practice in on-the-spot exegesis).
And so we come back to the heart of the matter: Jesus's natures and their relationship to each other in the fulness of His Person. Who exactly is the person we are talking about? Is it not the Logos, the eternal Second Person of the Trinity? This Divine Person assumed human nature, in doing so did He forget Himself? Or was the Person divided in the union of natures, so as not to be aware of Himself?
Is the Human Nature perfect? Is the Divine? If the human nature is not perfect, can it be joined to a perfect Divine Nature, unchanged? Would not the human nature be transformed by the union with the Divine Nature?
Here Today, Seems you want
Here Today,
Seems you want to keep the conversation going. Good! As to the historicity of Luke's Infancy Narrative, yes, you may be correct. Then again, what if it were a literary device, a preface to his Gospel which set the scene but never really happened. What if there had never really been an Annunciation? What if Joseph were, in fact, Jesus earthly father? What if Mary were not a virgin? Would that rule out Jesus being the Incarnation? Wild questions? Perhaps! However, they are questions that, like evolution to which you also take issue, are being asked and supported by arguements that we can't just brush under the rug or dismiss with authoritative answers.
If you wish to see Jesus as the "perfect human", go ahead. I don't know what the perfect human is, but if you need that fine. I would rather see him as a "regular guy" like ourselves who, as a baby, pooped his diaper, cried in the middle of the night, ate with his fingers, etc and who, child had to learn to speak (he would not have been able to understand Engilis), do math, read etc. and who, as a man, wrestled with life and faith and who he was and if he were right or wrong just as you and I (or at least I) do.
What I am saying is that I believe Jesus Christ was truly a human being. I do not think I am at odds with Chruch teaching.
You would have to
You would have to substantiate your "what if". At the time he was writing, there were already numerous accounts. Some of these would have conflicted each other. So Luke states that he has verified what happened and is sending this orderly account to Theophilous. He goes on to give many details that only could have originated from one source, namely Mary. You talk of how arguments cannot be brushed aside...
And yes, if Mary was not a virgin, then her son would not be Emmauel (God with us). (Isaiah 7:14).
You say that these questions are supported. Very well, support them and we can address them. Alone these questions have little or no merit, as we can ask anything preceded by "what if". (What if ... you hadn't been born? Abraham killed Isaac anyway? Hitler was really misunderstood? Absurd? Certainly, but we can ask it anyway).
See, the problem is I can't agree to disagree here. This is something that really matters, it shapes the way we view the world, it shapes our reaction to Christ and His Church, our reactions to Christ and His Church affect the whole Church, and thus your belief on this matter affects me.
I note that you will not say that you believe Him Divine, much less the fully Divine, eternally pre-existent Logos, Second Person of the Trinity, aka the Son. Yes, Jesus was fully human, He was also fully Divine. From Scripture we have suggested that Jesus knew who His Father at least eighteen years before the Baptism. He amazed the teachers with His questions and answers. (Socratic method?) Twelve years before that, we have the unborn John (the Baptist) leaping in his mother's womb at the sound of Mary's voice.
So we know that Jesus is both human and Divine. We know that from before His birth His Divine Presence has an effect on those around Him. We know that as he grew older He possessed more knowledge than He (as a human, particularly a carpenter's son) should have, particularly of the Law, the Prophets, and God.
I don't know about Chruch teaching, but in your belief that Jesus was fully man is within Church teaching as far as you state it. It is the part that you do not state that is an issue.
Here Today, While I thought
Here Today,
While I thought I had made it quite clear I am not questioning the divinity of Jesus, let me state it clearly, I believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Yes, I agree it shapes the way we view the world and is therefore important.
You are seeing the Luken Infancy Narratives as historically true. I am suggesting they are literary divices which do indeed support the belief that Jesus was divine but that the events themselves never happened.
Now, you say Luke questioned very carefully, as Luke himself says, and even got the story from Mary herself. Very possibly true. However, what about Matthew? He too has an account of the birth of Jesus but it differs from that of Luke.
Matthew seems to have missed all of what Luke wrote in chapter one. Matthew gives us a genealogy which does not agree with that given in Luke 3. Both genealogies trace the ancestors of Joseph, not Mary, so why are they important? In Matt. there were astrologers who came and presented Jesus with gifts. Luke makes no mention of them. Wouldn't you think this event would have made a pretty strong impression on Mary? Would she have forgotten to mention it to Luke? Same is true of the flight to Egypt of which we read in Matthew but is missing from Luke as is the killing of the Innocents. Seems to me that if Mary were recounting the early years of Jesus she would have remembered Egypt. Of course, if she were in Egypt, she may have missed the killing of the Innocents. Luke speaks of shepherds which Matthew missed. Matthew says nothing of the circumcision or presentation of Jesus in the temple, nothing of Simeon or Anna or of the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12.
So, was Luke careful and Matthew sloppy or is there some other explanation?
The Gospels were written
The Gospels were written with different purposes, and not everything could be written (John 21:25).
Matthew had a clear purpose in writing his Gospel: to show how Jesus fulfilled the prophesies. While Mary would have remembered Egypt, the importance of that compared to the mysteries revealed to her (which she pondered in her heart) were probably more important, especially after seeing them fulfilled. You have yet to support your assertion that Luke is not speaking historically with anything more than "what-if".
Here Today, You see what you
Here Today,
You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear and, while I would love to see you open your eyes and ears to the exciting insights into Scripture that good Catholic Scripture scholars are offering us, just stay in the box and be happy.
Peace.
I see no reason to
I see no reason to disbelieve Luke. He said he was writing a historical account. Your reason for rejecting it as historical is "what-if its not". You aren't presenting arguements (that you insist can't be ignored), but reasserting your conclusion. The OP is also guilty of this. You both ignore the wealth of Scriptural Study that agrees with Church teaching (and I would guess beacuse it agrees with Church teaching).
Here Today, I deeply
Here Today,
I deeply appreciate that you took the time to read the post I suggested. I deeply regret you understood none of it.
PRECISELY ON POINT: in a
PRECISELY ON POINT: in a perennially truthful way, Continuity speaks to us of Ultimate Reality — the expression of Divinity. Because nature is "primary scripture, as St. Thomas says, we need to understand First Scripture, First Lessons of Faith, if we would correctly understand the continuity of secondary scriptures. If we seek a hermeneutic of secondary scriptures from a discontinuous and even misinformed sense of primary scripture, we will be diffuse and confused in the continuity of our hermeneutic.
Worldview and dogma are inauthentic if they do not derive from the hermeneutic of scriptural continuity. In a "Time to Ponder" (AMERICA, 2/5/2007, pg 15) Father Ladislas Orsy, SJ, writes: "No serious thinking or effective work can be done in God's kingdom without utmost respect for verifiable facts and occurring events. God is in the real... if this is true, we should take a second look at the whole extent of 'the real'. God's plan is broader than what our senses can perceive. Hence, the question is, is our interpretation of facts and events correct? Have we grasped their full meaning?" By divine instance in creation, Divinity speaks in the continuity of expressed, and expressing(evolution) reality — Primary Scripture.
This is an important read!!! It gives a credible understanding of the continuity of faith, hope and love in divine "Magnanimity". I can hardly overstate its importance to the times and to the point.
While I would like to see
While I would like to see Cardinal Baum's quote in context I find it quite interesting. He said," ‘the evidence’ of Scripture both to the scholar and even the believer, is of itself inconclusive in determining the meaning of the most basic beliefs of the Christian faith: the identity of Jesus, the meaning of his life and death, the nature of his triumph, the obligations imposed on his followers, the consequences of his life for us and so forth." I am sure it is in harmony with Benedict's statement that Christianity took its final form in Europe under the influence of Hellenism. It would indicate to me that the Chruch began to define that which was "inconclusive" and, in so doing, defined herself as the definer. I have to wonder to what extent, as she reached conclusions and "defined", those conclusions influenced the final form of the Gospels themselves.
I wonder to what extent the development of the Chruch into what we know it as today was at the prompting of the Holy Spirit and to what extent is was the product of human beings consolidating authoirty and power. Certainly, while many can well see it as "inconclusive", there is ample evidence from the Gospels to indicate that, no matter what understanding of "Chruch" Jesus had, he certainly saw a leadership of service rather than authority to rule.
It seems to me that the approach of "liberal consensus" is offering us a deeper understanding of the underpinnings of our faith. Perhaps "inconclusiveness" is more closely related to faith than the certainty of dogma and doctrine. Personally, I find no threat to my faith in the findings of scriptural scholarship but can understand how, for those who have a fundamentalist understanding of the Gospels, it would. However, I also believe the fundamentalist approach, faced not only with the findings of scientific scriptural investivation but with those of science in general, will become more and more difficult and finally impossible to maintain.
It may well be science itself will lead us to belief in God. Wouldn't that be interesting.
Wonderful reflection: what
Wonderful reflection: what strikes me is that it constructively juxtaposes the culture of dogma and closed interpretation (of scriptures) against the (visionary) culture of openness to interpretation that makes sense from perspectives of growth into new understandings of creation, of self, of the essential connectedness of relationships, and the world of evolving consciousness; which seem to correspond with the yet unresolved conflicts of pre-Vatican II consciousness and Vatican II consciousness, namely, between the static-centrist worldview and the evolutionary worldview. The authenticity of consciousness resists the fixity of consciousness.
LEGO UT INTELLIGAM. No, this
LEGO UT INTELLIGAM. No, this is not a commercial, but it is an honest reflection. Give your kids a mountain of LEGOs (in my childhood it was Tinker Toys) and they will learn to build surprising worlds. Lego is the Latin for “I read”, and “ut intelligam” means, so I can understand. Love for reading is surely one of the most important gifts you can give a child, because the habit of reading helps keep one’s mind open to learning. But, for learning to be broad and all-embracing, reading and study need to be broad. Restrictive interest, restrictive reading builds a restrictive world — that’s the problem with narrowly targeted learning. Reading should generally open one’s mind and enlarge worldview. Interest in reading keeps us wanting to expand understandings and enlarge worldview. Why is that important, because WORLDVIEW DICTATES DOGMA.
What is “dogma”? Dogmas (dogmata) are the “enduring understandings” that give credibility to our lives, humanity to our relationships, and morality to our living. Dogmas are those beliefs that make us who we are. We cannot be who we are except we “own” the enduring understandings that authenticate our personal lives. Dogmas are the enduring understandings at the core of our belief system, and they are faith, hope and love. Everything else is peripheral to and constitutive of these. Everything else changes, “here today, gone tomorrow”. Enduring understandings are what make religion authentic and civility real.
Honest words (communication) inspire faith (God is WORD); informed understandings (consciousness) inspire hope (God is LIGHT); and authentic understandings (conscience) inspire love (God is LOVE).
What is “worldview”? Worldview is how we understand what is around us, how these understandings belong to us and how we belong to these understandings. In the normal course of events it is intuitionally self-evident (axiomatic) that from the instant the sperm penetrates the ovum, individual life begins a new journey of unstoppable change, transformation, growth, self-enlargement — “evolution”. Individual life is a holistic iteration of prior cosmic evolution. The closed-mind denial of this truth is a fixity of deceived consciousness that torques intuition and flies in the face of common sense.
Worldview and dogma are very personal matters. Their continued formulation is a constant giving direction to our personal lives. Worldview and dogma are processes that are never fully accomplished until we die; and even then, if we have lived mindfully, purposely, our enduring understandings will continue to inform others after our passing.
*indroductory note: this
*indroductory note: this post is at the request of one Bob Galvey, who invited two of us (who have a reputation for fisking such discussions) to take a look at the thread*
This is an intresting outlay of the 'liberal consensus', but I fail to see what it has to do with Catholicism, or even Christianity. (An inflamitory opening? Yes, but one which I will support.)
Is it possible for us to accept someone who claims to be God as a good moral teacher without also accepting their claim to be Divine? Logically, it would seem we cannot. If a man knows he is not God, and yet claims to be God, then he is a liar and a hypocrite. Such a morally bad man's teachings on morality would be suspect, would they not? Then we have the case where the teacher erroneously believes himself Divine. We have many of these in our day and age, most of them are institutionalized, as the meglomaniacal claim of a man to calim to be God reflects a bad intellect (insanity). So, if Jesus claimed to be Divine, we must accept these claims if we accept the rest of His teaching.
So we must examine the claims to Divinity: From the Baptism and Transfiguration (through the theophany), to His acceptance of Thomas' "My Lord and My God", to His claims to be one with the Father, to His explicit "before Abraham was, I AM".
On what basis can we exclude these from Scripture without denying the whole of Scripture?