|
Hi Mike!
I'm still interested in pursuing the discourse to anyone who would be interested with the subject of discussion.
I am a still devout Catholic and have no intention of deviating from the Magisterium of the Church. I feel that my query merits discussion to anyone who would like to fully appreciate what being Catholic means. For as long as queries are done, in sincerity and with no malice, nor with ill intent, discussion serves to enrich and enlighten anyone's spirituality.
Having said so, I proceed with a statement of proposition why the Nicene Creed is as important for the believers and as it is for non-believers.
A Creed made for believers can erroneously be self-serving and detrimental. Thus, a convincing argument must be made for non-believers with an unbiased perspective of the discussion. The Church after all, is Apostolic.
Ironically, I am coming from a discussion from within the fold and thus would be viewed as biased but that's another matter. I'll attempt to query from a non-believer's stand point.
The segment in the Creed . . . in fulfillment of the Scripture begs to answer from which Scripture?, the Old or New Testament?
At the time of our Lord's lifetime, His statements can't be considered Scripture because it's in the present tense. In fact, to what merit does Our Lord hold if all of His arguments have no prophetic reference at all.
. . . on the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scripture points to three Old Testament Scriptures as I have come to realize.
2 Maccabees 7:11
Daniel 12:2
Jonah
Maccabees and Daniel's prophetic references indeed prove our Lord's contemporaries wrong when He demonstrated it after three days, in fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures from their very own Torah.
The Pharisees got it right, the Sadducees didn't.
Now, alluding to Him rising after three days according to the Old prophetic Scripture is the tricky part. (As mentioned on the road to Emmaus). Far from being known that I'm scripturally versed, I am unable to find that reference but then again, the New Testament is based on Faith as opposed to the Old Testament's being based on the Law.
And as far as I could understand the Torah, it was based on the promised Messiah. Anything after that, the Torah doesn't have further references to what the Messiah will do except the promise of salvation.
It's another discussion how our Jewish brothers interpreted the promise of salvation by political means which led to their downfall but the Torah wanted the Jews to believe in the Messiah through Faith.
Three times Yahweh spoke in public in Jesus' lifetime to believe in Him, and they denied him.
- Again, to what merit Our Lord would argue that He is the Messiah if He would proclaim it by Himself?
The anointing should come from another reference to make it valid.
And the Jews can't expect the promise of salvation from someone who is not the Messiah.
Thus, the Old Testament Scripture alluding to His Resurrection after three days can't be found (or is difficult to refer to) on the prophetic words, if I have correctly surmised things.
It must be based on the words of a troubled citizen in Galilee, Nazareth from a carpenter who does prodigies far beyond any prophets have done . . . . in Faith.
Thus, our Lord stated Jonah alluding an old prophetic Scripture of His three-day resurrection in Faith.
His Resurrection should completely dispel any doubts about His people's destiny in resurrection and His appointment as the Messiah.
I can't find any reason for the Jews not to yield if He did . . . which in Faith, I believe He did.
My three cents worth.
In Christ,
Searching
|
