Search results

For starters, most of the gospel accounts are based on prior oral tradition. The interstitial period between Pentecost and the publication of the various books of the NT in the latter half of the first century C.E. was a time when oral tradition was all there was. For its first 20+ years...

I don't think he lied. But both propositions are consistent with there being valid oral tradition not recorded in the Bible.

I mean, where do you derive the notion that I deny Jesus is God? I am a Trinitarian. Nothing I have said calls that into question. Jesus is both God and man. In his human aspect, he has a mother. In his God aspect, he does not. Mary is the mother of Jesus the human being. Mary is not the...

What??? Where are you deriving this from? I DO believe Jesus is God. I am a Trinitarian. I just don't worship Mary. (Or to use your phrase, I don't "venerate" Mary.) And I see "Mother of God" as an honorific title.

You're gonna have to explain that one to me! Just sounds like an honorific title . . .

Have you been reading the Epistle of Barnabas? That's exactly its thesis!

Heck no! I think what is written in the NT is sufficient for our salvation and for what I take to be your use of "Truth." I'm just saying that it is not the exclusive source of doctrine, or of "Truth."

I'm not Catholic, and I don't pray to Mary, but I need to push back a bit here. Your notion that EVERYTHING of doctrinal significance was necessarily written into that wonderful Fourth Century compilation of writings we now call the New Testament is unfounded. Oral traditions matter. Indeed...

That's because the details are obtuse! The Nicene Creed starts "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty," as though to identify Who the One God is. And what follows in the description of Jesus Christ ("one in being with" and "true God from true God") proceeds to call that conclusion into...

I know it's a banned topic, but I sure would like to hear your understanding of it. I've discussed the topic with a number of Catholics and non-Catholics who do not seem to grasp it, at least not the way I understand the concept.

I won't attempt to define "conscience" here, but I do think that the statement "do not accept and thus do not understand the Trinity" needs some clarification, GG. I suspect there are many who understand the Trinity tolerably well, yet reject it. I think "thus" is a stretch here.

I find it interesting that all of the Synoptics follow their renditions of Jesus's "some standing here" statement immediately with an account of the Transfiguration. Coincidence (they otherwise disagree in their chronologies of Jesus's ministry)? Or meant to suggest something about the...

It does indeed show glory. Interesting that he chose only three witnesses to the event.

How is the Transfiguration "the Son of man coming in his kingdom"? How is it the Son of Man "coming" at all? I'm not seeing it. Neither did the Thessalonians. They understood Jesus's words to mean the Second Coming would occur within a generation. First Thessalonians was written to quell...

Understood. But to be fair, and like the power to heal, power to forgive sins was delegated to the apostles as well (John 20:23).

I never heard this theory before, and it's interesting to me. There are accounts of healing by the apostles: All the apostles healed people (Mark 6:13) Peter & John healed a lame man (Acts 3:1-11; 3:16) Philip cast out demons and healed the lame (Acts 8:7; 8:13) I have always assumed from...

I get it. But recalling the length of time between the "Some standing here" speech and the Peter-James-John-Jesus hike is an impressive accomplishment.

Matthew was not a witness to the transfiguration. If Matt. 17:9 is to be believed, he didn't even hear about it until after Jesus's resurrection. I suppose he could have recalled Peter, James and John going up the mountain with Jesus six days after the utterance under discussion here, and put...

So who is right, Matthew or Luke?

Was it six days after (Mark 9:1-2), or eight days after (Luke 9:28)?