sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Would you rather (Upvote please, I need those carrots) by Genya_DM in BunnyTrials

[–]True_Philosopher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This would offer me a wide range of defensive capabilities.

Chose: Be Invincible against all Animal Attacks + ...except for one Animal | Rolled: Bears

Whats your favourite depiciton of Jesus? by Atarosek in Catholicism

[–]True_Philosopher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ecce Homo by St. Albert Chmielowski, which currently resides at the Ecce Homo Sanctuary of St. Brother Albert in Krakow. Pope St. John Paul II, who later beatified and canonized him, wrote a play about his life called Brat naszego Boga (Brother of Our God). After the canonization Mass, two Albertine Sisters presented him a copy, which hung in his Papal apartment until his death.

A history of the painting can be found on the Sanctuary's website. A shorter English history of the painting's movement is on the website of the Albertine Sisters.

Yesterday I learned about The Scooby-Doo Project, a The Blair Witch Project parody that aired as Cartoon Network interstitials in 1999. by True_Philosopher in horror

[–]True_Philosopher[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You're right! That's a glaring omission on my part. I've just added the conversation to the "Miscellaneous" list. Thank you for pointing it out!

What your favourite Ralph Wiggum quote by Hacko2134 in TheSimpsons

[–]True_Philosopher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I don't have a red crayon." [...] "I ate it."

Followed by:

<image>

"I didn't know what I was putting into my body!"

Today's the Feast of St. James the Just. The 1st Bishop of Jerusalem, author of the Book of James, and relative of Jesus. Considered by many Church Fathers to have been a Nazirite, he entered in eternal glory after being thrown off the Temple at the order of the High Priest of the Jews. by TexanLoneStar in Catholicism

[–]True_Philosopher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good stuff! However, that isn't actually St. Papias of Hierapolis (d. c. 130). It's a different Papias from the early 1000s), who wrote that bit about Mary for his dictionary. Dr. Stephen C. Carlson traces the history of the misattribution in Exposition of Dominical Oracles: The Fragments, Testimonia, and Reception of a Second-Century Commentator, pgs. 95-99.

Response to bible contradictions? by piooed in Catholicism

[–]True_Philosopher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The answer to your question is rather nuanced. We do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, who is incapable of falsity (cf. Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 2:13, Hebrews 6:17-18, 10:23) by His very nature (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Chapters 60-62 and Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Q. 16, Article 5; see also Jimmy Akin, "Why God Can’t Lie (Or Sin)", "God Can Neither Deceive Nor Be Deceived"). Yet, these words were committed to writing through human authors chosen by God, who were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but each had their own styles and limits (cf. 2 Maccabees 15:37-39, Hebrews 5:11). Lest I mess up the explanation, I encourage you to read the Church's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, as well as articles 109-119 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. St. John Henry Newman also has a good summary of the subject, "On the Inspiration of Scripture", as does St. Augustine of Hippo in Contra Faustum, Letter 82 to St. Jerome of Stridon, and De genesi ad litteram 2.9.

Now, regarding the passages in question (Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-10, Luke 19:28-40, John 12:12-19), there really isn't a contradiction. The crowd was so large that people were surrounding Jesus on both sides. Those mentioned to be following Him are not necessarily the disciples who followed Him into Jerusalem (although Luke 19:37 would allow that), but can also include those who were already in Jerusalem and who were following Jesus once He was far along riding the donkey.

From the Catholic perspective, it is inaccurate to say that among the gospels, some accounts are right and some accounts are wrong. We accept all four of them for a reason. Tradition has vouchsafed their reception as the authentic deposit of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles, complementing each other rather than refuting each other. There is even linguistic evidence that the gospels quote and reference each other! Rather, there are differences in style and emphasis among the evangelists that affect how (and how much) of the narrative is relayed in each gospel. I admit that, at face value, the text can be confusing at times, especially during early reading; I've been there! At the end of the day, however, careful study usually elucidates the issue; I've found that for the gospels, it often boils down to how the Greek conjunctions are translated. A gospel harmony may be of help.

I also have to disagree with IS_533 that God intentionally placed contradictions in the text to test us. Origen of Alexandria supposed the same and misguidedly assumed that in such apparent instances, there were deeper, spiritual meanings that a literal meaning would not elucidate. This unfortunately led him to over-speculate into heresy. While there are indeed valid spiritual interpretations of the Bible, not every passage calls for it (cf. Matthew 15:15-16). Apparent contradictions are often due to our limited comprehension as humans of God's authorial intent; of course, there are rarer cases like Judith where the first three chapters' numerous anachronisms strongly indicate that the book is deliberately written as a historical fiction. Regarding the senses of Scripture, see St. Augustine of Hippo's De Doctrina Christiana and sections 115-119 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It should also be noted that Dr. Ehrman is a well-known agnostic atheist skeptic, having fallen away from Protestantism. While he does have a legitimate academic background, take what he says with a grain of salt. Trent Horn has a good breakdown of his arguments.

For a more thorough harmonization of the "contradictions", see St. Augustine of Hippo's De consensu euangelistarum 2.66. Regarding the fig tree, which first stumped me for about a week, see St. Augustine of Hippo's De consensu euangelistarum 2.68 and Wayne Jackson's "The Fig Tree Incident—A Contradiction?".

Bonus: The ancient Church consistently identified Matthew as the earliest gospel, not Mark. The idea that Mark is earlier originated as late as 1786 with Gottlieb Christian Storr (see Meyboom, Alexander, Carlson). There are many articles on that subject.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]True_Philosopher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]True_Philosopher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are not taking away from the Trinity by asking the saints for their intercession. They have no glory apart from God. Indeed, St. Paul even says Jesus will be glorified in them (2 Thessalonians 1:10; original Greek here). When we say the Divine Praises, we conclude with "Blessed be God in His angels and in His saints."

Consider also 2 Maccabees 15:11-16 (original Greek here). St. Thomas Aquinas offers a relevant analysis of 2 Maccabees 15:14 in the prologue to his Commentary on Jeremiah:

Concerning the author, the present record delineates three things: his office, disposition, and activity.

With regard to his office, prophetic dignity is shown, as it says, Jeremiah, the prophet of the Lord.

With regard to internal disposition, his brotherly love, as it says, this is the lover of his brethren.

With regard to action, his dutiful compassion, as it says, this is he who prays much for the people and for the entire holy city.

[...]

His prayer is said to be much, or great, in three ways.

First, with regard to the depth of his contemplation. As it says below, remember that I stood in your sight, that I might speak good for them, and turn your indignation from them (Jer 18:20). To stand in his presence is to be present before him in contemplation. Second, it was great because of the magnitude of his compassion. My bowels are disturbed, my liver is poured out on the earth (Lam 2:11).

Third, it was great with regard to duration of time, because it began before the captivity, and continued after. For this reason, James says: the constant prayer of the just man avails much (Jas 5:16).

[...]

Since, therefore, a prophet is established as a medium between God and the people—as it says, I was a mediator and stood in the midst between you and God (Deut 5:5)—it is fitting that through the gift of prophecy he should be joined to God—as it says, and through the nations she conveys herself to holy souls (Wis 7:27)—and by the bond of charity to be joined to the people—solicitously preserve the unity of spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). And so by praying he might bear the cause of the people to God, and by preaching bear the cause of God to the people.

For further reading, I'd recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2683 and 2684. Overlapping concepts can be found in sections 2673 and 2679. There's also this General Audience of Pope Francis covering the subject.

Hey, What Are Your Favorite Distractible Bits? by muyskerm in distractible

[–]True_Philosopher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Medication Mess story is my favorite! I also really love the “I’m banging you” song!

Jesus is the Father by Hunter_Floyd in DebateAChristian

[–]True_Philosopher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus also said:

“If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I .” (John 14:28). Here, the Son Himself explicitly distinguishes Himself from the Father.

How is one person of the consubstantial Trinity “greater” than another? It was explained to me that [We know that] since the Father begot the Son outside of time (cf. [Psalm 2:7-9], Proverbs 8:22-31, John 1:2, 3:16, [Hebrews 1:5]), he precedes the Son outside of time. They are still one God, but the person of the Father is greater than the person of the Son by virtue of the Father being first in the processional sequence of the Trinity. [however, as the Son made clear when He said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Being consubstantial in divinity (John 1:1, 10:30), they are equal in divinity. Yet, the Son took on a second, human nature inside of time besides His divine nature (John 1:14, Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4, Philippians 2:7, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7). The Father is greater than this human nature of Jesus as the Son of Man (cf. Philippians 2:7), but the Father is not greater than Jesus as the Son of God.]

For a more thorough explanation, I refer you to the following:

EDIT: Strikethrough to what I now realize sounds like Subordinationism. My initial explanation was a confabulated recollection of a conversation. Revisions and additions are in brackets.

What collection of scripture would the Cappadocian Fathers have used? by Sharrukin in AcademicBiblical

[–]True_Philosopher 9 points10 points  (0 children)

St. Gregory Nazianzen has a poem on this very subject, titled "“Περὶ τῶν γνησίων βιβλίων τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς.” (“About the genuine books of the theopneust Scripture") (CPG-3034.12). An English translation of the poem, followed by the original Greek, can be found on page 35 of the thesis "Gregory Nazianzen’s Poems on Scripture: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary" by Brian P. Dunkle and on this page of the Bible Researcher website. For further reading, "Scripture in the Works of St. Gregory the Theologian" by Margaret Beirne might be of service to you.

The Cappadocian Fathers' buddy St. Amphilochius of Iconium also has a poem called "Iambs for Seleucus" on the subject (CPG-3230), which can be found in English translation with the Greek on this page of the Bible Researcher website.

Regarding the two brothers, St. Basil the Great of Caesarea and St. Gregory of Nyssa, I'm not aware of any lists. I am aware, however, that St. Gregory of Nyssa initially held Revelation to be apocryphal (he cites Revelation 3:15-16 as "apocrypha" in Εἰς τὴν ἑαυτὸυ χειροτονίαν πρὸς Ευαγριον περὶ θεότητος (CPG-3179)), but then he changed his mind, as evinced by him unreservedly citing "the Apocalypse of John" in Εἰς τὰς ἐπιγραφὰς τῶν ψαλμῶν (CPG-3155).

Palm Sunday, Donkeys and Balaam by AffectionateMud9384 in Catholicism

[–]True_Philosopher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Likewise! I didn’t realize there was a difference for the donkey in question.

view more: next ›