dyermaker Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Someone on here stated that they were a Catholic, but went on to state that they weren't sure whether or not he existed. Is there anyone else who doesn't think he's real? I understand if you don't accept that he's the Son of God, that's a matter of faith--but Jesus is a historical figure, right? Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Jesus is historic like John Kennedy. Both were assasinated except they know who killed Jesus. I do believe we are all the sons of God. Jesus was a master teacher...a very evolved person. Read his words. Link to post Share on other sites
Darkangelism Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 He existed, as a historical figure. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I agree...he existed....yup! Link to post Share on other sites
Iamhappy Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Someone on here stated that they were a Catholic, but went on to state that they weren't sure whether or not he existed. That was me. It isn't that I don't think he's real, but as a person who's more spiritual than religious, I tend to go straight to God. Some people pray to Jesus first. Other's need to go to their priest/rabbi/reverend first. As inelegant as it sounds, I make a beeline for God and God alone. I do think that, whether he was the Son of God or not, Jesus was a very evolved person. It doesn't even matter if any of the things recited in the Bible are true or not. I think what's more important is the lesson to be learned. We should all strive to be more evolved, better human beings don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by Iamnotnothing I tend to go straight to God. Some people pray to Jesus first. A central tenet, I can't think of anything higher, of the Catholic Church, is the belief in the Holy Trinity. A Catholic does not differentiate between Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Spirit--one God, three persons. It's like Ice, Water, and Steam. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I like your username, I am not nothing, but not good English. Your avatar is real nice too. Link to post Share on other sites
CaterpillarGirl Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 The best sources to date: Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian (born 37 AD), references Jesus in his history of the Jews, and states "At this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the instigation of chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him..." (Jewish Antiquities XVIII, 63). Caries Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 100 AD), writes in a pro-Roman fashion, "Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated because of their leader Christus, the founder who was put to death by Pontius Pilate." Suetonius (A.D. 75-160) references Christ as an insurgent to Roman authority. Link to post Share on other sites
Iamhappy Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 A Catholic does not differentiate between Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Spirit--one God, three persons. I would say that's true for most Catholics, but not this one. I recognize the Holy Trinity, but for some reason only God is more real to me. I also believe in the Holy Spirit. In my darkest moments, it is not Jesus I cry for, but for God to deliver me from whatever hell I'm in and for the Holy Spirit to assist me in getting through to God. However, Jesus does play more of a central role in other religions. I can't tell you how often I've been asked as to whether or not I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. When I answer that I have a personal relationship with God, I often get quizzical looks. There are people who differentiate. But I guess it doesn't really matter so long as the end result is the same. Link to post Share on other sites
CaterpillarGirl Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by Iamnotnothing I would say that's true for most Catholics, but not this one. I recognize the Holy Trinity, but for some reason only God is more real to me. I also believe in the Holy Spirit. In my darkest moments, it is not Jesus I cry for, but for God to deliver me from whatever hell I'm in and for the Holy Spirit to assist me in getting through to God. The Holy Spirit IS GOD, hence he/she/it cannot intercede. That's like asking me to give myself a message. If you don't believe in the Holy Trinity, then I agree with Dyer, you are rejecting a fundamental piece of Catholic dogma. If you feel more comfortable communicating with God, The Father, go for it, but realize that according to Catholic theology He is united with the Son and the Holy Spirit. -CG Link to post Share on other sites
Iamhappy Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I like your username, I am not nothing, but not good English. Your avatar is real nice too. I'm snarkworthy now, eh? I know it's not good English, but it means something to me. Besides, it's too late to change it now. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Yeah, it's too late to change it... Link to post Share on other sites
Iamhappy Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 you are rejecting a fundamental piece of Catholic dogma. If you feel more comfortable communicating with God, The Father, go for it, but realize that according to Catholic theology He is united with the Son and the Holy Spirit. If you read my statement you'll see that I said I recognize the Holy Trinity, not that I accept it. Furthermore, I think it's obvious that I don't religiously adhere to Catholic dogma or any other dogma for that matter. I spent a lot of time in Catholic school. I come from a very religious family. I have many relatives who are nuns and priests and involved in the Church in various ways. I am not unfamiliar with the basics of Catholicism. Please do not think or assume that just because I don't zealously follow or accept the teachings of the Church that I am not well-versed in these matters. Link to post Share on other sites
CaterpillarGirl Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by Iamnotnothing If you read my statement you'll see that I said I recognize the Holy Trinity, not that I accept it. Wow, I guess I was confused then, because "recognize" + "don't accept" = "reject" in my interpretation. Furthermore, I think it's obvious that I don't religiously adhere to Catholic dogma or any other dogma for that matter. And I assumed from this statement, that you were in fact Catholic -- I would say that's true for most Catholics, but not this one. Are you mad because I said that if you claim to be Catholic and yet reject a baisc tenet of the faith, I don't consider you to be, in fact, Catholic? Or that I assumed you had a lack of knowledge concerning the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that resulted from the Council of Nicene (AD 325)? I'm sorry. I don't know your background. I was responding to what you wrote. BTW, having priests and nuns in your family does not make you an expert. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by Iamnotnothing If you read my statement you'll see that I said I recognize the Holy Trinity, not that I accept it. The antonym of 'to accept' is 'to reject'. Please do not think or assume that just because I don't zealously follow or accept the teachings of the Church that I am not well-versed in these matters. No one assumed so--I wasn't attempting to edify you, only to question how you can say "I'm Catholic", while rejecting Catholicism. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by jenny sure, he existed. so did elvis. the jewish position: how nice. so what? It struck me as shocking that some would claim he didn't exist, seeing as he's a historical figure. Link to post Share on other sites
Iamhappy Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 The antonym of 'to accept' is 'to reject' I think it's unfair to make this kind of statement. Just because I don't believe wholly in the teachings of the Church doesn't mean I've rejected the Church or God or the Holy Spirit or Jesus for that matter. I have a different interpretation. I relate to God period. Isn't that the point? I see no hypocrisy in calling myself a Catholic, for I do follow the basic fundamental teachings. What makes me more a Catholic, the fact that I practice compassion and try to do unto others as I would unto myself, or that I accept that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one? Is it more important that I adhere to dogma or that I practice what Jesus Christ preached about? Link to post Share on other sites
yes Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 i've said before that jesus didn't exist. i didn't mean that there was no historical figure like that... but that jesus as he's known, with miracles and resurrection and all that, didn't exist. i.e. there was some jewish guy, and somebody began to make up legends about him - some belives the legends and Christianity was born; some didn't believe and they stayed Jewish. that's my uneducated 2c, -yes Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by Iamnotnothing Is it more important that I adhere to dogma or that I practice what Jesus Christ preached about? That's irrelevant. I didn't mean to offend you at all, but the belief in the Holy Trinity is central to the Catholic Tradition. Why would you identify with something that you reject? I don't object to you calling yourself a Catholic, not in the least--I was just curious why you do so, if you claim to go straight to God, why would you need to be a member of an organized religion at all? Link to post Share on other sites
CaterpillarGirl Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by Iamnotnothing I think it's unfair to make this kind of statement. Just because I don't believe wholly in the teachings of the Church doesn't mean I've rejected the Church or God or the Holy Spirit or Jesus for that matter. I have a different interpretation. I relate to God period. Isn't that the point? I see no hypocrisy in calling myself a Catholic, for I do follow the basic fundamental teachings. What makes me more a Catholic, the fact that I practice compassion and try to do unto others as I would unto myself, or that I accept that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one? Is it more important that I adhere to dogma or that I practice what Jesus Christ preached about? There are a lot of people out there who follow the basic fundamental teachings. But their belief system and religion is not Catholic. Catholics basically outline everything they believe in creed format (i.e. the Nicene or Apostle's Creed). Sure, you can be a good Christian and not believe in the Holy Trinity. Yes, you are a wonderful person, and yese, you are living the way Jesus intended you to, but if you don't believe in the Holy Trinity, you just aren't Catholic. Link to post Share on other sites
Iamhappy Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 belief in the Holy Trinity is central to the Catholic Tradition From wikipedia.com: The word Catholic appears in the main Christian creeds (prayer-like definitions of belief), notably the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed. Christians of most denominations, including most Protestants, affirm their faith in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church." This belief refers to their belief in the ultimate unity of all churches under one God and one Saviour. However in this context the word catholic is used by such believers in a definitionary sense (i.e. universal), not as the name of a religious body. In this usage it is usually written with a lower-case c, while upper-case C refers to the sense discussed in this article. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 That clarifies the difference between catholic and Catholic--when you said you were a Catholic, I made the assumption that you meant a Roman Catholic, because you capitalized the 'c'. Listen, forget I said anything, I don't mean to offend you about something so personal. Link to post Share on other sites
Iamhappy Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I wasn't offended at all. I capitalize all proper names out of habit. I really enjoy these types of discussions. It's always interesting to hear other people's opinions especially on a subject that's of interest to me. To clarify, I was raised a Roman Catholic, but I am catholic in my beliefs (re: the straight to God thing). I also experience massive amounts of guilt and do daily penance. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I agree...he existed....yup! But Darkangleism said it so much better! Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I think it's entirely possible that he didn't really exist. He's a historical figure because that's what we're told he is. There is no true evidence that he really existed, other than in a book that a bunch of people wrote thousands of years ago, and some pictures. Granted, yes, there are other cultures who talk about him, but the story of Jesus, or a Jesus like figure, goes back WAAAAY before his era. History isn't always what we think it is. At least that's what conspiracy theorist David Icke says. He's one of these "the world is run by the Illuminati" people, the statements he makes are pretty far out, but some of them indeed make sense. He says that Jesus never existed, that every election is rigged, the world is run by a bloodline that dates back tens of thousands of years. As for what *I* believe, I dunno. It's a matter of believing or not, in my opinion, there is really no fact. I choose to believe that there was a Jesus, whether he did what he's said to have done, I'm really not sure. It's a hard pill to swallow, especially since we haven't seen anything like that whatsoever in two thousand years, which is odd to me. But I prefer to HOPE, rather than believe, that he did exist, and that God exists. There are no true definites in life, other than death. That's my opinion, though. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts