Mother Teresa Struggled With Her Faith

GuardChief · 08-24-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyMattyChooChoo

Jesus Christ even struggled with his faith "My God, why have you abandoned me?"

Everyone struggles with their faith. Saints throughout history have written about their struggles. Everyone struggles. It is good to read about recent potential saints and their struggles. We relate better to them because we followed their lives.

Excellent point, Matt. Of course, one would'nt expect Him to have any doubts, since presumably He knows for certain. That He struggled with the question does nothing to bolster hope.

AnimeSpirit · 08-24-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuardChief

Excellent point, Matt. Of course, one would'nt expect Him to have any doubts, since presumably He knows for certain. That He struggled with the question does nothing to bolster hope.

A life without struggle is a life with nothing to gain. No hopes, dreams, goals, amibitions, or anything that one could want or need in life. A man who has obtained everything in life, must then struggle to keep it. Even He has hopes and therefore, logically has struggles and hardships.

As Tom Hanks once said (referring particularly to baseball), "The Hard is what makes it great."

rhertz · 08-25-2007, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnimeSpirit

As Tom Hanks once said (referring particularly to baseball), "The Hard is what makes it great."

I loved that movie, "A league of their own". Tom Hanks is my favorite actor. I even watched him on the tv show "Bosom Buddies".

Isaac-Saxxon · 08-25-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhertz

I loved that movie, "A league of their own". Tom Hanks is my favorite actor. I even watched him on the tv show "Bosom Buddies".

Click image for larger version

Name: squirrelly.jpg
Views: 9
Size: 24.6 KB
ID: 1400

MattyMattyChooChoo · 08-25-2007, 11:20 AM

Jesus words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".

Jesus was fully God and fully human. His humanity was displayed with these words as was his completion of the new covenant by quoting the words from the New Testament. Jesus wasn't just quoting for the sake of quoting. He was fully God AND fully human. Though He did not sin, He was tempted just as we are tempted.

Did you know that the documents in the Old Testament, and the New Testament were not actually written in English? The books of the New Testament were written by early Christians (aka Catholics). The current list of books of the Old and New Testaments was created in 393 A.D. at the Council of Hippo. This is the list used for the last 1700 years by Roman Catholics.

The New Testament was written by the Apostles, the first to spread the teachings of Christ. Following the same teachings and traditions of Christ through the Apostles, the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ, assembled the Bible, interpreted, and translated it into the vernacular.

I find it very incredible that a Christian tradition can adopt a book of religious teaching from one Church, remove it from the context of 1200 years of study and interpretation, then tell said Church they do not know their own holy book.

This is to say that apart from the teaching and interpretation of God through the Roman Catholic Church, understanding of Biblical teachings is incomplete. You're right that we shouldn't simply take everything the "stuffed shirt" says as Gospel. The teachings of Christ through the Catholic Church are not simply "this is what you believe, end of story". The gifts of logic and reason are applied, throughout the history of the Catholic Church, to fully understand Christ's teachings, and appreciate the mysteries of God.

However, it is utter arrogance to think that each person can interpret the Bible for themselves and thus each person will have the truth. That way of thinking is nothing more than theological relativism, a practice which leads to nothing but confusion and contradiction.

Isaac-Saxxon · 08-25-2007, 11:55 AM

To many, the origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" - and therefore, a book with no credibility or connection to the original texts. Actually, the foregoing statement is a common misunderstanding of both Christians and non-christians alike. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations. The primary differences between today's Bible translations are merely related to how translators interpret a word or sentence from the original language of the text source (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).

In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC.

Matty I respect your post but I do not agree with your statement. The original Hebrew and Greek text have acrostics built into them that lock in the truth. I am that I am dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes. The entire Bible is divinely inspired. This comes down to what IT is we believe as individuals. I respect your interpretation I just do not agree. I think we are both seeking truth and I know that is light years ahead of many church goers that warm the bench. I wish you the best in your quest.

MattyMattyChooChoo · 08-25-2007, 03:25 PM

Isaac,

You trivialize the origin of the Bible. The Catholic Church didn't just assemble the documents and send it on its way. Biblical scholars and theologians worked, and continue to work, for 2000 years to find, not just the interpretation of each individual word, but the meaning of the message as a whole.

You are correct that the King James Bible is derived from the ancient scripts. However, when the Bible was translated by Roman Catholics long before the Protestant Reformation, there was no disunity in the Church. The King James version was commissioned to continue the disunity and thus was translated reflecting the non-Catholic beliefs (sola scriptura).

King James was the head of the Church of England, which was created by Henry VIII (self declared head of the Church of England) for the sake of getting divorced. How was the Church instituted? For what reason? These things matter. The Church of England was instituted by a king who wanted Church-sanctioned sin. Those who stood up to him were executed (St. Thomas More). King James continued in the tradition of Henry VIII by supporting the right to head of the Church of England.

Define divinely inspired. Your two sentences are confusing.

"I am that I am dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes. The entire Bible is 'divinely inspired'".

The phrase "dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes" and "divinely inspired" seem to contradict. The first seeming to infer that God "possessed" (for lack of a better word) the scribes and took over their hands to put it down on paper. The second phrase infers that the Bible is "inspired" by God.
Something to remember is that the Bible was not jotted down be every person involved. Adam and Eve did not keep journals. The Bible was passed on verbally for generations, until it was finally recorded on paper (scrolls, whathaveyou). Did the verbal tradition whittle away every single detail of the story? Undeniably. It is part of our nature. When finally transcribed, was the story exactly the same as the actual event. Doubtful. If God told the scribes exactly what to write leaving no interpretation of the story to the writers, and human nature had changed the verbal tradition, the written version and the verbal versions would be vastly different. So which one is true?

rhertz · 08-27-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaac-Saxxon

No, I really do like Tom Hanks and that baseball movie!! Just because I don't "go to the mattresses" on every post, doesn't mean I'm a fence sitter...... In fact, I hate squirrels.... Tree rats i call them...

Al Swearengen · 08-27-2007, 11:40 PM

Welcome Huldah. Your avatar is of course the stunningly beautiful Joann Whaley from the movie "Willow"! Very nice!

I'm just guessin here, but maybe Mother Teresa figured that as long as there were people sufferin in abject poverty, she herself should be poor also, so as to better understand the misery of their plight.

Just think, if Mother Teresa, Ghandi, and Billy Graham all end up in Hell, then we're all screwed...especially LateNight!

Thats why I recently got LN a book entitled "Chicken Soup for LateNight's Soul", because I happen to know for a fact that LateNight struggles with his faith, and he could sure use some of dat! Nope, no thanks be necessary...I just does what I can to helps da peoples!

Isaac-Saxxon · 08-28-2007, 07:38 AM

It is a good thing when a teacher and man or woman of God does not do it for the financial gain. This shows conviction and not greed. Mother Teresa did help many poor people but to be living with nothing by choice is not that smart of a choice. She could have the basic things she needs in life and be in a better position to help others and show that hard work and prayers bring blessings to those that work. Church dogma is poison and the small study groups that do not get paid or the individual that studies deep will be the ones to learn the Word. This is a test only a test

08-25-2007, 11:20 AM	#5
MattyMattyChooChoo Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Shreveport Posts: 86 Rep Power: 0	Jesus words "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son". Jesus was fully God and fully human. His humanity was displayed with these words as was his completion of the new covenant by quoting the words from the New Testament. Jesus wasn't just quoting for the sake of quoting. He was fully God AND fully human. Though He did not sin, He was tempted just as we are tempted. Did you know that the documents in the Old Testament, and the New Testament were not actually written in English? The books of the New Testament were written by early Christians (aka Catholics). The current list of books of the Old and New Testaments was created in 393 A.D. at the Council of Hippo. This is the list used for the last 1700 years by Roman Catholics. The New Testament was written by the Apostles, the first to spread the teachings of Christ. Following the same teachings and traditions of Christ through the Apostles, the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ, assembled the Bible, interpreted, and translated it into the vernacular. I find it very incredible that a Christian tradition can adopt a book of religious teaching from one Church, remove it from the context of 1200 years of study and interpretation, then tell said Church they do not know their own holy book. This is to say that apart from the teaching and interpretation of God through the Roman Catholic Church, understanding of Biblical teachings is incomplete. You're right that we shouldn't simply take everything the "stuffed shirt" says as Gospel. The teachings of Christ through the Catholic Church are not simply "this is what you believe, end of story". The gifts of logic and reason are applied, throughout the history of the Catholic Church, to fully understand Christ's teachings, and appreciate the mysteries of God. However, it is utter arrogance to think that each person can interpret the Bible for themselves and thus each person will have the truth. That way of thinking is nothing more than theological relativism, a practice which leads to nothing but confusion and contradiction. Last edited by MattyMattyChooChoo; 08-25-2007 at 11:59 AM.

08-25-2007, 11:55 AM	#6
Isaac-Saxxon SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,421 Rep Power: 318	To many, the origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" - and therefore, a book with no credibility or connection to the original texts. Actually, the foregoing statement is a common misunderstanding of both Christians and non-christians alike. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations. The primary differences between today's Bible translations are merely related to how translators interpret a word or sentence from the original language of the text source (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. Matty I respect your post but I do not agree with your statement. The original Hebrew and Greek text have acrostics built into them that lock in the truth. I am that I am dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes. The entire Bible is divinely inspired. This comes down to what IT is we believe as individuals. I respect your interpretation I just do not agree. I think we are both seeking truth and I know that is light years ahead of many church goers that warm the bench. I wish you the best in your quest. __________________ Maranatha Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

08-25-2007, 03:25 PM	#7
MattyMattyChooChoo Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Shreveport Posts: 86 Rep Power: 0	Isaac, You trivialize the origin of the Bible. The Catholic Church didn't just assemble the documents and send it on its way. Biblical scholars and theologians worked, and continue to work, for 2000 years to find, not just the interpretation of each individual word, but the meaning of the message as a whole. You are correct that the King James Bible is derived from the ancient scripts. However, when the Bible was translated by Roman Catholics long before the Protestant Reformation, there was no disunity in the Church. The King James version was commissioned to continue the disunity and thus was translated reflecting the non-Catholic beliefs (sola scriptura). King James was the head of the Church of England, which was created by Henry VIII (self declared head of the Church of England) for the sake of getting divorced. How was the Church instituted? For what reason? These things matter. The Church of England was instituted by a king who wanted Church-sanctioned sin. Those who stood up to him were executed (St. Thomas More). King James continued in the tradition of Henry VIII by supporting the right to head of the Church of England. Define divinely inspired. Your two sentences are confusing. "I am that I am dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes. The entire Bible is 'divinely inspired'". The phrase "dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes" and "divinely inspired" seem to contradict. The first seeming to infer that God "possessed" (for lack of a better word) the scribes and took over their hands to put it down on paper. The second phrase infers that the Bible is "inspired" by God. Something to remember is that the Bible was not jotted down be every person involved. Adam and Eve did not keep journals. The Bible was passed on verbally for generations, until it was finally recorded on paper (scrolls, whathaveyou). Did the verbal tradition whittle away every single detail of the story? Undeniably. It is part of our nature. When finally transcribed, was the story exactly the same as the actual event. Doubtful. If God told the scribes exactly what to write leaving no interpretation of the story to the writers, and human nature had changed the verbal tradition, the written version and the verbal versions would be vastly different. So which one is true?

08-27-2007, 11:40 PM	#9
Al Swearengen Advanced Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 849 Rep Power: 248	Welcome Huldah. Your avatar is of course the stunningly beautiful Joann Whaley from the movie "Willow"! Very nice! I'm just guessin here, but maybe Mother Teresa figured that as long as there were people sufferin in abject poverty, she herself should be poor also, so as to better understand the misery of their plight. Just think, if Mother Teresa, Ghandi, and Billy Graham all end up in Hell, then we're all screwed...especially LateNight! Thats why I recently got LN a book entitled "Chicken Soup for LateNight's Soul", because I happen to know for a fact that LateNight struggles with his faith, and he could sure use some of dat! Nope, no thanks be necessary...I just does what I can to helps da peoples! __________________ Molon Labe! Last edited by Al Swearengen; 08-28-2007 at 01:47 AM.

08-28-2007, 07:38 AM	#10
Isaac-Saxxon SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,421 Rep Power: 318	It is a good thing when a teacher and man or woman of God does not do it for the financial gain. This shows conviction and not greed. Mother Teresa did help many poor people but to be living with nothing by choice is not that smart of a choice. She could have the basic things she needs in life and be in a better position to help others and show that hard work and prayers bring blessings to those that work. Church dogma is poison and the small study groups that do not get paid or the individual that studies deep will be the ones to learn the Word. This is a test only a test __________________ Maranatha Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)